
(p 




h^C'<r'^ 



t^A/ , 



POLITICAL 



Speeches and Debates 



OF 



ABRAHAM LINCOLN 



AND 



STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS 



c^" cO 



pXRfGK 



18S4-1861 ^'or 



¥^^^/^^^. 



/ 



Every man has a right to all that may conduce to his pleasure, if he does 
not inflict pain on any one else. This is one of the broadest maxims of 
human nature, and I cannot therefore see how ils supporters can be fairly 
called upon to defend it — the burden of proof lies, not on the advocates of 
freedom, but on the advocates of restraint. — Macatilay. 



Edited by Alonzo T. Jones 



INTERNATIONAL TRACT SOCIETY 

Battle Creek, Mich. 

268 Crawford Street, I 59 Paternoster Row, 

Toronto, Ont. | London, Eng. 



MDCCCXCV 



V^1 



A- 



^ 



EntcrcJ accudiriij to Act of Confess, in the year 1895, by 

mt: INTERNATIONAL TRACT SOCIETY 
In the «»rticc of the Librarian of Coni^ress, Washin^on, D C. 



ALL Rights Reserved. 



PREFACE. 



Once, while selling a copy of the "Liucolu and Douglas Debates,' 
the I )0(jkseIler remarked while wrapping up the book, "Those were 
the days when they made history. " This is eminently true. And 
that history which was then being made was a vital part of the 
history of this nation. It was nothing less than the practical 
application, the maintenance, and the carrying to completion, in 
national affairs, by the people, of the principles announced by the 
fathers as the fundamental principles of the nation. This con- 
sideration alone gives to this discussion a living interest which 
will continue as long as the nation exists , and justifies the repub- 
lishing of the discussion as many times and in as many shapes as 
may best serve to keep it before the people. 

There is, however, another consideration that makes it important 
that this discussion should find a large place amongst the people. 
That is, the fact that in our day and generation another attack is 
made upon the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, 
in an attempt once more " to turn a free people back into the hate- 
ful paths of despotism. " — P. 4^8. As indeed no attack could ever 
be made upon the Declaration, with any other view. 

Then, the attack was upon the clause which declares that ' ' all 
men are created equal. " Noiv, the attack is upon that clause which 
declares that ''governments derive their just powers from the con- 
sent of the governed. " Then, there was rendered a decision of the 
Supreme Court of the United States which perverted the Constitu- 
tion in the interests of that attack. Now, there is also a decision 

[iii] 



IV IMIKKACE. 

of Un» Supit'iuw Courl t»f lliu IJuiled iSUiU'S which iMjrverts the Con- 
Htitutiun ill tii«' itiU-rvHU of thin ntUick. The careful study of this 
hiiiton -making iliscunwion, luul of the principles involved, will pre- 
pan« the jieopU- HucofHsfully and in the ri^ht way, to meet this later 
attack, an well us all other attacks, ui>on tin- iiiiiuortiil Declaration ; 
aail l«» comi-t any an<l all jM-'rversions of the Constitution. 

The iKilamtion of InileiH-ndence and the Constitution of the 
l'nite<l States us (hty stutul in tlu ir own tconh, are the perfect 
charters of the lilHTtics of mankind and the rights «)f tin- peoi)lc. 
And thf jKHipIr must se*- to it tiial those who are, or may be, chosen 
to iKMitioDs of tnist to maintain tin- principles uunonnced in these 
nohh* charters, shall indeed maintain those principles as they arc 
deelarxnl in the wonls, and not be allowed to subvert them alto- 
gether by vicious interpreUitions. Vitr, "The people of these 
Tnitotl States are the rightful masters of l>oih Congresses and Courts; 
not lo overt hn»w the Constitution; Imt to overthrow the men who 
pen'ert the ConstituticMi. " — /*. .'t07. And "If there is anything which 
it is the «luty of the whole jieople to never entrust to any hands imt 
their own, that thing is the po-servation ami perpetuity of their 
own lilierties and institutions." — /*. 24. 

A Hi.r>l may Im- Haid as to ilie arrangement of this edition of the 
S|ie«H-ln'« and Debates. The aim has been, ( 1 ) To bring together 
Hurh luatU-T ft*i would cover the whole ground, giving a history of 
Ihp itituation, in the NmalleHt compass iM)Ssible for eoiivenienee; and 
(2) S<i I«J nmuige this matter as tli.it it might be most available 
for ntudy and n-fenMiw. 

In lhe«M> jH.intM, every other eililion has piovi-d defeetivr. One 
edition printM only the Joint I>ehrtteH. Another prints tiic .I.iiiit 
iV'tmtcii and cfrtaiu other siKHH-hea lK«for« and after tiie del»at<'s, 
hul VKinning only with Lincoln's nomination for Senator, and 
atopping nhort of hiw inaugumi Thene iMith are unsatisfactorv in 
thai they do not begin H4M»n enough and end Uhj soon. Another 



PREFACE. V 

I)riuts ouly certain leading speeches of Lincoln. This is unsatis- 
factory because it gives only one side of the case. And yet others 
print the Joint Debates and all of Lincoln's speeches, letters etc., 
of every sort, Ijesides. These are unsatisfactory, because they are 
too bulky, contain too much that is not needed, and are too high- 
priced for popular use and wide circulation. 

This edition begins with Lincoln's Speech at Peoria, in 1854, 
which, in itself, gives the whole history of the question up to the 
repeal of the Missouri Compromise in that year. This is followed 
by Lincoln's Speech at Springfield, June 26, 1857, which carries 
the history up to the Dred Scott decision in that year. Then fol- 
lows Lincoln's speech at Springfield, to the Convention that nomi- 
nated him for Senator, with which begins the close contest between 
him and Senator Douglas that continued till Lincoln's election and 
inauguration. And the book closes practically with Lincoln's first 
inaugural •, though it has been thought best to add the Gettys- 
burg speech and his second inaugural. This arrangement, it will 
be seen, gives a fairly full history of the whole question involved, 
practically a political history of the country, up to the breaking 
out of the war. This arrangement covers the whole ground in a 
book of convenient size, and at a price that puts it within easy 
reach of every man who cares to study. 

To the student, another serious defect in previous editions is 
the total lack of any helpful system of headings to either pages or 
speeches — the book-title being put at the top of every page from 
beginning to end of the book, and the place and date of the 
speeches, with the name of the speaker, at the beginning only of 
each speech; so that, when a passage is wanted, even though the 
particular speech is remembered, it is impossible to find it without 
a tedious turning of leaves, first to find that speech or debate, then 
to find, if in a debate, the particular speech desired, and then again 
to find the passage wanted. 

In this edition it will be seen that the place, date, and name of 



^ PREFACE. 

the speaker, «>f e:u-»i partk-ular hik-ccIi, ;ire wl :it Uif lop nt" llie 
pAges, BO tliHt wlKTi-vt-r till" l)<M)k may be opfned the reader kuows 
insUujtIy precis«-ly where he is. Th.n, with siil) -heatls placed through 
the BiKfchea zieeordiug to tlie KM.Uiig points discussed, and witii 
iniiwrUint piisHriges in black letters, tlu- arran^'cinent is sucli tiiat 
any pa.'^sjige that may Ik- wanted* can easily l)e found. 

(.Jreat care has Ik-cu Uiken in the reading. Five separate editions 
of the siH-eehes, debates, etc., have been usc.l for comparison. In 
this way scriou.s misUikes and iiiiportanl omissions liave been dis- 
eoverwl and corrected. This is not to profess that no mistaki-s can 
Jk" found in this edition; it is only to say that the greatest care has 
l»c«-n taken that there should be none. 

That these living prin<-iplcs and this vital history may receive 
from the American people the consideration that is due Itotli to the 
matter and to themselves, is the earnest wish of 

The Editor 

.VNI) 

TiiK Pi iti.isiiKivS. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 



Paqb. 

Speech op Lincoln, Peoria, III., October 10, 1854 1 

" Springfield, III., 1855 39 

'' <' " June 20, 1857. 40 

" " 10, 1858 52 

Douglas, Chicago, III., July 9, 1858 60 

Lincoln, " <' "10, " ,. 74 

Douglas, Bloomington, III., July 10, 1858 92 

" Springfield, " " 17, " 119 

Lincoln, " " " ' " 143 

Correspondence Concerning Debates 161 

I'^iRST Joint Debate, Ottawa, August 21, 1858 165 

Douglas's Opening Speech 105 

Lincoln's Reply 176 

Douglas's Rejoinder 194 

Second Joint Debate, Freeport, August 27, 1858 200 

Lincoln's Opening Speech 200 

Douglas's Reply 211 

Lincoln's Rejoinder 232 

Third Joint Debate, Jonesboro, September 15, 1858 239 

Douglas's Opening Speech 239 

Lincoln's Reply 254 

Douglas's Rejoinder 274 

Fourth Joint Debate, Charleston, September 18, 1858... 283 

Lincoln's Opening Speech 283 

Douglas's Reply 296 

Lincoln's Rejoinder 317 

[vi.J 



yiij TABLI-: «>F < (iNTKNTS. 

Extract kiimm TiiUMnuLi/s Alton Si'K.kcii 325 

KXTHATT KKo.M DdfU I.ASS .1 ACKS< »N V I M.K Sl'KKCII 331 

Finn Joint Deuatk, Gai.ksburo, October 7, 1858 337 

DoUtlLAS'S Ol'ENlNU Sl'KECIl 33 < 

Lincoln's Rki'LY •^^" 

DouoLAs'8 Rejoinder 307 

Sixth .Iuint Dkhate. Qiincy. Orn.itKii i:'., 1S5K 375 

Lincoln's Oi'Enin(» Si'kkch 3<o 

DODQLAS'S HeI'LV '^^^ 

Lincoln's Rejoinder '^^^ 

Seventh and Last Joint Derate, Ai,T(.n, OrroiiKH 15, 1S5H. . 414 

l)(»uaLA8'8 Opening Speech **1-* 

Lincoln's Reply '*-° 

Douglas's Rejoinder '*"*^ 

Speech ok Lincoln, Columbus, O., September KJ, 1H59 457 

Cincinnati, O., " 17, " 4S3 

.( (< ii New York CiTV. Kkiuuaky L'7, IStld.... 5()H 

Lincoln and the Sprinokiei.k I'kkachers i>-y 

Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, Washinoton, D. ("., 

March 4, 1801 •• ^•^*' 

Address ok President Lincc.ln at the (Iettysburo Na- 
tional Cemetauv, N.>v. lit, i^r.n '>39 

Lincoln' Second Inaimmuai, Address, Washinoton. D. C., 

March 4. 1805 540 



POLITICAL SPEECHES AND DEBATES. 



THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE. 

Delivered at Peoria, 111., October IG, 1S54. 

[On Monday, October, 10, 18r)4, SenMtor Douglas, by appointment, ad- 
dressed a large audience at Peoria. Wiien he closed, he was greeted with 
six hearty cheers, and the band in attendance played a stirring air. The 
crowd then "began to call for Lincoln, who, as Judge Douglas had an- 
nounced, was, by agreement, to answer him. Mr. Lincoln then took the 
stand and said : — ] 

Fellow-Citizens : I do not rise to speak now, if I can stipu- 
late with the audience to meet me here at half-past six or at seven 
o'clock. It is now several minutes past five, and Judge Douglas 
has spoken over three hours. If you hear me at all, I wish j-ou to 
hear me through. It will take me as long as it has taken him. That 
will carry us beyond eight o'clock at night. Now every one of you 
who can remain that long, can just as well get his supper, meet me 
at seven, and remain an hour or two later. The Judge has already 
informed 30U that he is to have an hour to reply to me. I doubt 
not but you have been a little surprised to learn that I have con- 
sented to give one of his high reputation and known ability this ad- 
vantage of me. Indeed, my consenting to it, though reluctant, was 
not wholly unselfish, for I suspected, if it were understood that the 
Judge was entirely done, you Democrats would leave and not hear 
me ; but by giving him the close, I felt confident you would sta}^ for 
the fun of hearing him skin me. 

[This proposition was agreed to and at 7 o'clock p. m. he made the 
following speech: — ] 

The repeal of the Missouri Compromise, and the propriety of its 
restoration, constitute the subject of what I am about to say. 

As I desire to present my own connected view of this subject, 
my remarks will not be specifically an answer to Judge Douglas; yet 

[1] 



2 SPEECH or LINCOLN, 

HM I pnxH-i'il, till' m:iin i>oiiit« ho has presented will arise, and will 
riHH'ive such n-siH-clful attention as 1 may be al.le to give them. 

I wish further to say that I do not propose to (juestion the patri- 
otism, or asHjiil the motives of any man or class of men, but rather 
to iM.nline mvsrlf strictly to the naked merits of the question. 

1 also wish to be no less than national in all the positions T may 
t«ko, and whenever I take ^rr„und which others have thought, or 
may think, narrow, sectional, and dangerous to the Union, I hope 
to give a reason which will appear sulllcient, at least to some, why I 
think ditferently. 

And as this subject is no other than part and parcel of the larger 
gcnend .juestion of domestic slavery, 1 wish to .m.vke and to kekp 
the distinction between the kxistino institution and the extension 
of it. so broad and so clear, that no honest man can misunderstand 
me, and no dislumest one successfully misrepresent me. 

In order to a clear understanding of what the Mtssouri Com- 
promisi- is, a short history of the preceding kindred subjects will be 
projK'r. 

TIIK NORTHWESTERN TKRlUTOllV. 

When we esUibiished our independeiue, wt- did not own or claim 
the country to which this compromi.se applies. Indeed, strictly 
speaking, the Confederacy then owned no country at all; the States 
rt?«i)eclively owned the country within their limits, and some of them 
owned territory beyond their strict State limits. Virginia thus owned 
the Northwestern Territory — the country out of which the principal 
part of Ohio, all Indiana, all Illinois, all Michigan, and all Wiscon- 
sin, have since Ix-en formed. She also owned (perhaps within li.r 
then limit,s) what has since been fonned into the State of Kentucky. 
North Carolina thus owned what is now the State of Tennessee; and 
South Carolina and Georgia owned, in separate parts, what are now 
MiK-HiHsippi and Alabama. Connecticut, I think, owned the little 
n-maining part of Ohio — iR'ing the same where they now send (Jid- 
«lingH to Congress, and iK-at all creation at making cheese. 

T.iew Territories, t«»gether with the States them.selves constituted 
nil the country omt which tin- Confederacy then claimed any sort of 
Jiirimliclion. We were then living unch-r tin' Articles of Confedera- 
tion, which were 8U|>erceded by the Constitution several years after- 
wanl. The (|Ui*stion of ct-ding th«'s»' Territories to the (liiieral 
<;..veninient was wt on f<M.t. Mr. .lelTerson — th«' author of the 
l>.i l.imlioii of lnd<|Miidence, nud othi-rwise a chief actor in the 
lU'Volutiun, then a delegate In Congress; afterward, twice President; 



PEORIA, ILL., OCTOBER 16, 1854. 3 

who was, is, and perhaps wiH continue to be, the most distinguished 
politician of our history; a Virginian by birth and continued resi- 
dence, and withal, a slaveholder— conceived the idea of taking that 
occasion to prevent slavery ever going into the Northwestern Terri- 
tory. He prevailed on the Virginia Legislature to adopt his views, 
and to cede the Territory, making the prohibition of slavery therein 
a condition of the deed. Congress accepted the cession with the con- 
dition;! and in the first ordinance (which the acts of Congress were 
then called) for the government of the Territory, provided that slav- 
ery should never be permitted therein. This is the famed "Ordi- 
nance of '87," so often spoken of. 

Thenceforward for sixty-one years, and until 1848, the last scrap 
of this territory came into the Union as the State of Wisconsin, all 
parties acted in quiet obedience to this ordinance. It is now what 
Jefferson foresaw and intended — the happy home of teeming mil- 
lions of free, white, prosperous people, and no slave among them. 
% 

AUTHOR AND ORIGIN OF THE POLICY. 

Thus, with the author of the Declaration of Independence, the 
policy of prohibiting slavery in new territory originated. Thus, 
away back of the Constitution, in the pure, fresh, free breath of the 
Revolution, the State of Virginia and the National Congress put that 
policy in practice. Thus, through more than sixty of the best years 
of the Republic, did that policy steadily work to its great and 
beneficent end. And thus, in those five States, and five millions 
of free, enterprising people, we have before us the rich fruits of 
this policy. 

But now, new light breaks upon us. Now Congress declares 
this ought never to have been, and the like of it must never be 
again. The ' < sacred right of self-government is grossly violated 
by it. " We even find some men, who drew their first breath, and 
every other breath of their lives, under this very restriction, who now 
live in dread of absolute suffocation, if they should be restricted in 
the "sacred right" of taking slaves to Nebraska. 

That perfect liberty they sigh for — the liberty of making slaves 
of other people — Jefferson never thought of; their own fathers 
never thought of; they never thought of themselves, a year ago. 
How fortunate for them they did not sooner become sensible of their 
great misery ! 0, how difficult it is to treat with respect such as- 
saults upon all we have ever really held sacred. 

1 See this more fully explained on page 4T1 . As it stands here it is not strictly correct. 



^ SPEECH <»F LINCOLN. 

TlIK LollSIANA TLUBITORY. 

Ihii to rflnm to history. In 1803 we purchased what was th.n 
called LouiBUum. of France. It in.lu.K.d the present States of 
lluisiuna. ArkauHas. Missouri, aud Iowa; also the TerrUory of M.n- 
ues<.l« and the present Ume of contention, Kansas and Nebraska. 
Shivery already existed amon- the Fren<h at New Orkans; and to 
Home Jxtent, at St. Louis. In 1S12, Louisiana came into the I n.on 
a.* a slave State, without controversy. In 1818 or 1S19, Missouri 
Hh<.we<l si^rns of a wish to come in with slavery. This was resisted 
by Northern members of Congress; and thus began the first great 
8laver>- agitation in the nation. The controversy laste.l several 
months, and Ix-carae very angry and exciting; the House of lU'i.re- 
Bentatives voting steadily for the prohibition of slavery m Missouri, 
and the Senate voting as steadily against it. Threats of breaking 
up the rnion were freely made; and the ablest public men of the 
day became seriously alarmed. , 

THE COMPROMISE. 

At length a compromise was made, in which, as in all compro- 
mises, iM.th sides yielded something. It was a law passed ou the 
6th day of March. 1820. providing that Missouri might come into 
the Iniun Nsiih >l:tv.Tv, but il.ai in all the remaining part of the 
territory purchased of France, which lies north of thirty-six degrees 
and thirty minutes north latitude, slavery should never be per- 
mitted. This provision of law is the Missouri Compromise. In ex- 
eluding shivrrv north ..f the line, the same language is employed as 
in the'ordinance of '87. It directly ai.i.lied to b.wa, Minnesota and 
the preHc-nl l>one of contention, Kansas and Nebraska. Whether 
Uiere should or should not be slavery south of that line, nothing 
wai» said in the law. Hut Arkansas constitute.! the principal re- 
maining part, south of the line; an.l it has since bei-n admitted as a 
Slave Slate. liy still another rapi.l move, Texas, claiming a boun- 
dary much farther west than when we parted with her in 1811), was 
bn.ughl bark to the I'nited States, and admitted into the Union as a 
SlaTc Suit*-. Then there was little or no settlement in the northern 
pari of Texan, a consiilerabh' |M)rtion of which lay north of the Mis- 
miuri line; an«l in the ri'solutions admitting her into the Union, the 
MiHiMJuri reHtrielion w:m expressly extended westward acro.ss her ler- 
rilor)'. Thin was in 1><L'^», only nine y«'ars ago. 

fhuH originaU«d the Missouri Compromise; and thus has it been 
rwpecU-d down to 1845. And even four years later, in IS 19, our 



PEORIA, ILL., OCTOBER 10, 1854. 5 

distinguished senator [Judge Douglas], in a public address, held the 
following language in relation to it: — 

"The Missouri Compromise had been in practical operation for about 
a quarter of a century, and had received tiie sanction and the approbation 
of men of all parties in every section of the Union. It had allayed all sec- 
tional jealousies and irritations, growing out of this vexed question, and 
harmonized and tranquilized the whole country. It had given to Henry 
Clay, as its prominent champion, the proud sobriquet of the 'Great Pacifi- 
cator,' and by that title, and for that service, his political friends had 
repeatedly appealed to the people to rally under his standard, as a Presi- 
dential candidate, as the man who had exhibited the patriotism and tlie 
power to suppress an unholy and treasonable agitation, and preserve the 
Union. He was not aware that any man, or any party from any section of 
the Union, had ever urged as an objection to Mr. Clay that he was the 
great champion of the Missouri Compromise. On the contrarj', the effort 
was made by the opp'onents of Mr. Clay, to prove that he was not entitled 
to the exclusive merit of that great patriotic measure; and that the honor 
vas equally due to others, as well as to him, for securing its adoption — 
that it had its origin in the hearts of all patriotic men, who desired to pre- 
serve and perpetuate the blessings of our glorious Union — an origin akin to 
that of the Constitution of the United States, conceived in the same spirit 
of fraternal alTection, and calculated to remove forever the only danger, 
which seemed to threaten, at some distant daj', to sever the social bond of 
Union. All the evidences of public opinion at that day seemed to indicate 
thai this Compromise had been canonized in the hearts of the American 
people, as a sacred thing, which no ruthless hand would ever be reckless 
enough to destroy." 

I do not read this extract to involve Judge Douglas in an incon- 
sistency. If he afterward thought he had been wrong, it was right 
for him to change — I bring this forward merely to show the high 
estimate placed on the Missouri Compromise by all parties up to so 
late as the year 1849. 

But going back a little, in point of time. Our war with 
Mexico broke out in 184G. When Congress was about adjourning 
that session, President Polk asked them to place two millions of 
dollars under his control, to be used by him in the recess, if found 
practicable and expedient, in negotiating a treaty of peace with 
Mexico, and acquiring some part of her territory. A bill was 
duly gotten up for the purpose, and was progressing swim- 
mingly in the House of Representatives, when a member by the 
name of David Wilmot, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, moved as 
an amendment, "Provided, that in any territory thus acquired, 
there shall never be slavery. " 



C, SPEECH OF LINCOLN, 

Tliis is tlif origin of 

TIIK KAU-KAMKli "Wll.MdT l'R(»VIS(»." 

Il crvuteil a gri-at llulter ; hut it 8tuck like wax. was voleil into 
tin* bill, mill tilt' bill passi'd with it tliroiigU the House. The Seu- 
ate, however, adjounu-d without final action on it, and so both 
ai)pn»i)riali*)n and proviso were lost for the time. The war con- 
tinued, ami at the next session the President renewed his request 
for tiie appropriation, enlarging the amount, T think, to three mil- 
lions. Again eaine the Proviso, and defeated the measure. Con- 
gress adjourned again, and the war went on. In December, 1847, 
the new Congress assembled. I was in the lower House that term. 
The ••Wilmot Proviso, "or the princiide of it, was constantly com- 
ing up in some shape or other, ami I think I may venture to say I 
voted for it at least forty times, during the short time I was there. 
The Senate, however, held it in check, and it never became a law. 

In the spring of 1848, a treaty of peace was made with Mexico, 
by which we obtained that portion of her country which now consti- 
tutes the Territories of New Mexico and Utah, and the present State 
of California. Py this treaty the "Wilmot Proviso" was defeated, 
in so far as it was intended to be a condition of the acquisition of 
territory. Its friends, however, were still determined to find some 
way to restrain slavery from getting into the now countrj'. This 
new ac<iuisition lay directly west ()f our old purchase from France, 
anil extended west to the Pacific Ocean — and was so situated that 
if the Mi.s.souri line should be extended straight west, the new 
countr\' would be divided by such extended line, leaving some 
north an<l some soutii of it. On .ludge Douglas's motion, a bill, 
or provision of a bill, jjassed the .Senate to extend the .Missouri 
line. The Pnni.so men in tlu' llou.se, including myself, voted it 
4own, iH'cauHe, by implicati(jn, it gave up the southern part to 
slavery, while we were bent on having it all free. 

In the fall of 1H4H, the gold mines were discovered in California. 
This attracted the [M-ople to it with unprecedented rapitlity, so that 
on, or soon after, the meeting of tin- lu'w Congn'ss in December, 
iK-t'J, mIm- already ha<l a |N>pulation of nearly a hundred thousand ; 
hud called a convention, formed a State Constitution excluding 
hlavery ; and was knocking for admission into the Union. The 
Pniviso men, of course, were for letting her in ; liut the Senate, 
ulwavH true to the other side, would not consent to her ailmission. 
And then? California Ht<>o<l, kept out of the Union, because she 



PEORIA, ILL., OCTOBER IG, IS.') I. 7 

would not let slavery into her borders. Under all the clreumstauces, 
perhaps this was not wrong. There were other pohits of ilispiite 
connected with the general question of slavery, which equally needed 
adjustment. The South clamored for a more efficient Fugitive-Shxve 
law. The North clamored for the abolition of a peculiar species of 
slave trade in the District of Columbia, in connection with which, 
in view from the windows of the Capitol, a sort of negro livery- 
stable, — where droves of negroes were collected, temporarily kept, 
and finally taken to Southern markets, precisely like droves of horses, 
— had been openly maintained for fifty years. 

UTAH, NEW MEXICO, AND 1850. 

Utah and New Mexico needed Territorial governments; and 
whether slavery should or should not be prohibited within them was 
another question. The indefinite western boundary of Texas was 
to be settled. She was a Slave State, and consequently the farther 
west the slavery men could push her boundary, the more slave 
ground was secured ; and the farther east the slavery opponents 
could thrust the boundary back, the less slave ground was secured. 
Thus this was just as clearly a slavery question as any of the others. 

These points all needed adjustment ; and they were all held up, 
perhaps wisely, to make them help to adjust one another. The 
Union now, as in 1820, was thought to be in danger ; and devotion 
to the Union rightfully inclined men to yield somewhat in points, 
where nothing else could have so inclined them. A compromise 
was finally effected. The South got their new Fugitive-Slave law; 
and the North got California (by far the best part of our acquisition 
from Mexico) as a Free State. The South got a provision that New 
Mexico and Utah, when admitted as States, may come in with or 
without slavery as they may then choose ; and the North got the 
slave trade abolished in the District of Columbia. The North got 
the western boundary of Texas thrown farther back eastward than 
the South* desired ; but, in turn, they gave Texas ten millions of 
dollars, with which to pay her old debts. This is the Compromise 
of 1850. 

Preceding the Presidential election of 1852, each of the great 
political parties. Democrats and Whigs, met in convention, and 
adopted resolutions indorsing the Compromise of '50, as a " finalit}',"' 
a final settlement, so far as these parties could make it so, of all 
slavery agitation. Previous to this, in 1851, the Illinois Legisla- 
ture had indorsed it. 



S SPEECH OK LlNCuI.N'. 

NEBRASKA COMES INTO VIEW. 

Dnring this loiij; pcrioil of timt', Ni-brasku luul lemuiiied siil)- 
>t:intially uu uninliabiUHl country, but now emiLcrulioii t<», and 
settlement witliin, it lte<raii to take place. It is aijoul one-tbird as 
lar>:e as the presi-ut I'luted Stales, and its iinportauee, so long over- 
kH)ked. begins to come into view. The restriction of slavery l)y the 
Missouri Com proini.se direetly ai)plies to it — in fact was first made, 
and has since Ik'cm :n liiitained. expressly for it. In IS.'):}, a bill to 
j;ive it a Territoriid government was passed by the House of llepri.'- 
st'utatives, and, in the hands of Judge Douglas, failed of passing 
(»nly for want of time. This bill contained no repeal of the Mi.s.souri 
Compromise. Indeed, when it was assailed because it diil contain 
such repeal, Jutlge Douglas defended it in its existing form. On 
January 4, 1854, Judge Douglas introduces a new bill to give Ne- 
Itraska a territorial government. He accomi)anies tlds bill with a 
report, in which last he expressly recommends that the Missouri 
Compromise shall neither be affirmed nor repealed. 

Before long the l)ill is so moilifled as to make two Territories 
inst<*ad of one, calling the .southern one Kansas. 

Also, about a month after the introduction of the hill, on the 
Judge's own motion, it is so amended as to declare the Missouri 
Compromisi' inoperative and void ; and, substantially, that the 
people who go and st-ttle there may establish slavery, or exclude it, 
as they may .see fit. In this shape, the bill passed both liranches 
«»f Congress and became a law. 

This is the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. The history may 

not be preei>ely :u<MU:ile in »'Very [»:iit i<ul.ir ; but 1 am sure it is 
sullleiently ho, for all the use I shall attempt to make of it ; and in 
it we have the chief material enabling us to judge correctly whether 
the repi-al of the Missouri Comproujise is right or wrong. 

I think, and shall try to show, that it is wrong — wrong in its 
direct etfect, letting slavery into Kansas and Nebraska ;''and wrong 
in ita prosiK'ctive principle, allowing it to spread to every other 
part of the wide worM, where men can be found inclined to take it. 

ThiB declare*! indilTerence, l)Ut as 1 must think covert real zeal. 
for the spread of slavery. I cannot but hate. I hate it because of the 
monstrouH injustice of slavery itself. I hate it becau.se it deprives 
our republican example of its just inlluence in the world ; enables 
the eiiemicH of fnH> institutions, with plausibility to taunt us us 
hyiKKTites ; causes the real fri«'n<ls of freedom to doubt our sin- 



PEORIA. ILL., OCTOBER Ki, 18.14. 9 

cerity ; and especially because it forces so many really good men 
among ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental prin- 
ciples of civil liberty, criticising the Declaration of Independence, 
and insisting that there is no right principle of action hut .self-in- 
terest. 

Before proceeding, let me say I think I have no prejudice 
against the Southern people. They are just what we would be in 
their situation. If slavery did not now exist among them, they 
would not introduce it. If it did now exist among us, we should 
not instantly give it up. This I believe of the masses North and 
South. Doubtless there are individuals, on both sides, who would 
not hold slaves under any circumstances, and others who would 
gladly introduce slavery anew, if it were out of existence. We 
know that some Southern men do free their slaves, go North, and 
become tip-top abolitionists ; while some Northern ones go South, 
and become most cruel slave-masters. 

When Southern people tell us they are no more responsible for 
the origin of slavery than we are, I acknowledge the fact. When 
it is said that the institution exists, and that it is very difficult to 
get rid of it in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreci- 
ate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I 
should not know how to do myself. 

If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to 
do, as to the existing institution. My first impulse would be to 
free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia — to their own native 
land. But a moment's reflection would convince me, that whatever 
of high hope (as I think there is) there may be in this in the long 
run, its sudden execution is impossible. If they all landed there in 
a day, they would all perish in the next ten da3's, and there are not 
surplus shipping and surplus money enough to carry them there in 
many times ten days. What then ? Free them all, and keep them 
among us as underlings ? Is it quite certain that this betters their 
condition ? 

I think I would not hold one in slavery, at any rate ; yet the 
point is not clear enough for me to denounce people upon. What 
next? Free them, and make them politically and socially our 
equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine 
would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people 
will not. Whether this feeling accords with justice aud sound 
judgment, is not the sole question, if indeed it is any part of it. 
A universal feeling, whether well or ill-founded, can not be safely 



10 SPEEOH OF Li:^COLy. 

iisn'«jarilfil We tan not, then, make them equals. It does seem 
I mt' thiit systems of «i;r:Kluul emancipation miy;lit l)e uilopted ; but 
i.tr their tardiness in tliis, I will not undertaki- to ju(l<>:e our Itretliren 
..f tlie South. 

When tliev remind us of tiieir constitutional ri;^lits, I :ickiii>\vl- 
.•dL'«- tliem not •irudiiin^ly. 1)U( fully and fairly ; and I would give 
them any legislation for the reclaiming of their fugitives, which 
should not ia its striagency be more likely to carry a free man into 
clavery, than our ordinary criminal laws are to hang an innocent 
one. 

IJut all this, l«» my jud^mtMt, furnishes no more excuse for 
permitting slavery to «io into our own free territory, than it would 
for revivinor the African slave trade l»y law. The law which forbids 
the bringing of slaves from Africa, and that which has so long 
forbidden the taking of them into Nebraska, can hardly be dis- 
tinguished on any moral principle; and tlu- repeal of the former 
iduld tind (luite as plausible excuses as that of the latter. 

AIKif.MENTS K(»R TIIK IIEI'K.M,. 

The ar^^uments by which the repeal of tin- Missouri Compromise 
is sou<:lit l«i l»e justilied, are these : — 

rii>l. Tlial the Nebraska eountry needed a Territorial uovern- 
inent. 

.^ecoiid. Tliat in varicMis ways, the pul>lii' bad repudiated tliat 
Compromise, and demanded the repeal, antl thiTefore. should not 
now complain of it. 

And lastly. That the repeal establishes a principle whieh is 
intrinsically ri^ht. 

ANSWKR. 

i will attempt an answer to each of them in its turn. 

First tljen. If that country was in ii«-ed of a Territorial ort;ani- 
zatioii, could it not liave had it us well without as with the repeal? 
Iowa and Minnesotji, to both of which the Missouri restriction 
applied, had, without its repeal, each in succession. Territorial 
orjianizations. And even the year before, a l)ill for Neiiraska 
its«'lf was witiiin an ace of passin}{, without tlie repealinj; clause ; 
and this in tlie liands of the same men who are now the champions 
of re|>«al. Why no netessity (li'ii f«ir tlu' repi'al? \U\\ still lat* r. 
when thin very hill whh first l>rou<;lit in, it contained no repeal I'.nt. 
•oy they, Ix'CuUHc the [H-ople had deniandctl, or ratlu'r commanded, 



PEORIA, ILL., OCTOBER 16, 1854. 11 

the repeal, the repeal was to accompany the organization, whenever 
that should occur. 

Now, I deny that the public ever demanded any such thing — 
ever repudiated the Missouri Compromise, ever commanded its 
repeal. I deny it, and call for the proof. It is not contended, 
I believe, that any such command has ever been given in express 
terms. It is only said that it was done in principle. The support 
of the Wilmot Proviso is the first fact mentioned, to prove that 
the Missouri restriction was repudiated in principle, and the second 
is, the refusal to extend the Missouri line over the country acquired 
from Mexico. These are near enough alike to be treated together. 
The one was to exclude the chances of slavery from the whole new 
acquisition by the lump, and the other was to reject a division of it, 
by which one-half was to be given up to those chances. 

Now, whether this was a repudiation of the Missouri Compromise 
line, in principle, depends upon whether the Missouri law contained 
any principle requiring the line to be extended over the country ac- 
quired from Mexico. I contend it did not. I insist that it contained 
no general principle, but that it was, in every sense, specific. That 
its terms limit it to the country purchased from France, is undenied 
and undeniable. It could have no principle beyond the intention 
of those who made it. They did not intend to extend the line to 
country which they did not own. If they intended to extend it, in 
the event of acquiring additional territory, why did they not say so ? 
It was just as easy to say that "in all the country west of the 
Mississippi which we now own or may hereafter acquire, there shall 
never be slavery," as to say what they did say ; and they would 
have said it, if they had meant it. An intention to extend the law 
is not only not mentioned in the law, but is not mentioned in an}' 
contemporaneous history. Both the law itself and the histor}' of 
the times are a blank as to any principle of extension ; and by 
neither the known rules for construing statutes and contracts, nor 
by common sense, can any such pi'inciple be inferred. 

Another fact showing the specific character of the Missouri law 
— showing that it intended no more than it expressed ; showing 
that the line was not intended as a universal dividing line between 
Free and Slave Territory, present and prospective, north of which 
slavery could never go — is the fact that, by that very law, Missouri 
came in as a Slave State, north of the line. If that law contained 
any prospective principle, the whole law must be looked to in order 
to ascertain what the principle was. And b}' this rule, the South 



12 SPKECII OF LINi DLX. 

coulil fairly (HHiti-ml that iiiasiuuch as tlu\' g<»l one Slave State 
north of the line iit the inception of the law, they have a right to 
have another given them north of it occasionally, now and then, in 
the indelinite westwanl extension of the line. This tlemonstrates 
the ahsunlity of attempting to detluce a i)rospective principle from 
the Missouri Compromise line. 

When we votml for the Wilmot Proviso, we were voting to keep 
slavery out of the whole Mexican acipiisilion ; and little did we 
think that we were thereby voting to Ut it into Nebraska, lying 
several hundred miles dist.ml. When we voted against extending 
the Missouri line, little did we think that we were voting to destroy 
the old line, then of n«'ar thirty years" staniling. 

To argue that we thus repmliated the Missouri Compromise is 
no less absurd than it wt)ulil be to argue that because we have so 
far forlK)riie to actjuire Cuba, we have thereby, in principle, repu- 
diated our former acquisitions, and determined to throw them out 
of the I'nion. No less absurd than it would be to say that, because 
I have ri'fused to build an addition to my hoilse, I thereby have 
decided to ilestroy the existing house! And if I catch yon setting 
fire to my house, you will turn upon me and say I i.nstructed you 
to do it ! 

The most conclusive argument, however — that while voting for 
the Wilmot Proviso, and while voting against the extensio.n of 
the Mis.souri line, we never thought of disturbing the original 
Missouri Compromise — is found in the fact that there was then, 
and still is, an unorganized tract of line country, nearly as large as 
the State of Missouri, lying injmediately wi-st of Arkansas, and 
south of the Mi.ss«juri Compromise* line ; and that wo never at- 
tenipteil U) prohibit slavery as to it. I wish particular attention to 
this. It adjoins the original Missouri Compromise line by its 
northern Ixiundary. and consecpienlly is part of the country into 
which, by implication, slavery was permitted to go by that Com- 
promise. There it has lain open ever since, and there it still lies ; 
and yet no elFort has bei-n made at any time to wrest it from the 
Smth. In all our struggh's to prohibit slavery within our Mexican 
arf{nisitionH, we never so much as lift<'d a finger to prohibit it as 
to this tract. Is not this entirely conclusive that, at all time.a, we 
have held tin* MiswMiri Compromise as a Ha<-red thing, even when 
iigaiuMt ours4-lveH as well as when for us? 

Senator Douglas sonietinies says the Missouri line itself, was, in 
principle, only an exteuHion of the line of the onlinanec of "87 — 



PEORIA, ILL., OCTOBEIl IG, 1854. 13 

that is to say, an extension of tlie Ohio river. I think this is weak 
enough on its face. I will remark, however, that, as a glance at 
the map will show, the Missouri line is a long way farther south 
than the Ohio, and that if our Senator, in proposing his extension, 
had stuck to the principle of jogging southward, perhaps it might 
not have been voted down so readily. 

But next it is said that the Compromises of '50, and the ratifica- 
tion of them by both political parties in '52, established a new 
principle, which requires the repeal of the Missouri Cfjmpromise. 
This, again, I deny. I deny it, and demand the proof. I have 
already stated fully what the Compromises of '50 are. The par- 
ticular part of those measures from which the virtual repeal of the 
Missouri Compromise is sought to be inferred, (for it is admitted 
they contain nothing about it, in express terms,) is the provision in 
the Utah and New Mexico laws, which permits them, when they 
seek admission into the Union as States, to come in with or without 
slavery as they shall then see fit. 

Now I insist this provision was made for Utah and New Mexico, 
and for no other place whatever. It had no more direct reference 
to Nebraska than it had to the territories of the moon. But, say 
they, it had reference to Nebraska, in principle. Let us see. The 
North consented to this provision, not becaiuse they considered it 
right in itself, but because thej^ were compensated — paid for it. 

They, at the same time, got California into the Union as a Free 
State. This was far the best part of all they had struggled for by the 
Wilmot Proviso. They also got the area of slavery somewhat nar- 
rowed down in the settlement of the boundary of Texas. Also, they 
got the slave-trade abolished in the District of Columbia. 

For all these desirable objects, the North could afl'ord to yield 
something; and they did yield to the South the Utah and New 
Mexico provision. I do not mean that the whole North, or even a 
majority, yielded, when the law passed; but enough yielded when 
added to the vote of the South, to carry the measure. Now can it 
be pretended that the principle of this arrangement requires us to 
permit the same provision to be applied to Nebraska, without any 
equivalent at all ? Give us another Free State; press the boundary 
of Texas still further back; give us another step toward the destruc- 
tion of slavery in the District, and you present us a similar case. 
But ask us not to repeat, for nothing, what you paid for in the first 
instance. If you wish the thing again, ptiy again. That is the 
principle of the Compromises of '50, if indeed they had any princi- 



14 SPEFXH or LINCOLN. 

pies beyond their six'cific terms — it was tlie system of equivalents 

Ajiain : If l'on«jivss, at that time, intended that all future terri- 
tories should, when atlmitteil as States, come in with or without slav- 
erj", at their own option, why did it not say so ? With such a 
universal provision, all know the bills c<Mild not have passed. Did 
they, then — eould they — establish a prineiple contrary to their 
own intention ? Still further: If they intended to establish the 
principle that wherever Congress had control, it should be left to 
the people to do as they thought fit with slavery, why did they not 
authorize the pet)i)U' of the l)islrict of Coluiubia. at tlicir option, to 
alx»lirsh slavery within tlieir limits? 

1 personally know this has not been left undone because it was 
unthouf^ht of. It was freipieutly spoken of by memliers of Con- 
gn-ss, and l»v citi/ens of Washington, six years ago; and I heard no 
one express n doubt that a system of gradual emancipation, with 
com|»ensation to owners, would meet the approbation of a large ma- 
jority of the white people of the District. But without the action 
of CVmgress they could sa}' nothing; and Congress said " No." In 
the measures of 1S50, Congress had the subject of slavery in the 
District expressly on hand. If they were then esUiblishing the prin- 
ciple of allowing the people to do as they [jlease with slavery, why 
dill they not apply the prini-iple to that peo|)le ? 

Again: It is claimed that l)y the Resolutions of the Illinois Leg- 
islature, pa.s.sed in iSol, the repeal of the Mi.ssouri Coniproniise was 
demantled. This I deny al.so. Whatever may be wctrked out Ity a 
criticism of the language of those resolutions, the people have never 
underst«MMl tli<m as In'ing any more than an indoi-senunt of the 
Comproniise <»f IH.'iO, and a release of our Senators from voting for 
the Wilin<it Provis(t. The whole people are living witnes.ses, that 
this only was their view. 

Finally: It is asked, " If we did not mean to apply tiie T'tali and 
New Mexico provision to all future TerriUtries, what did wi- mean 
when Wi-, in ixyj, indor.seil the Compromises of 1850?" 

For mysi'lf, 1 can answer this (piestion most easily. I meant 
nt»t to ask a rejK'al or modification of the Fugitive-Slave law. I 
meant not to ask f«ir the alxdition of slavery in the District of Co- 
lumltia. I meant not to resist the admission of VUih and New 
Mexico, even should they jisk to come in as Slave States. I meant 
iiolliing alMiut additional Territ<»ries, In^cause, as I understood, we 
then liad no Territory whosi- ehanieter as to slavery was not aireailv 
nelllfd. Ah to Nebniwka, I regarded it* character as being fixed, 



PEORIA. ILL., OCTOBER 16, 1854. 15 

by the Missouri Compromise, for tliirt}' years — as unalterably fixed 
as that of my own home in Illinois. As to new ac(|uisitions, I said, 
'< sullicient unti) the day is the evil thereof." When we make new 
acquisitions, we will, as lieretofore, try to manage them somehow. 
That is m}' answer ; that is what I meant and said ; and I appeal 
to the people to sa}' each for himself, whether that was not also the 
universal meaning of the Free States. 

And now, in turn, let me ask a few questions. If by any or all 
these matters, the repeal of the Missouri Compromise was com- 
manded, why was net the command sooner obeyed? Why was the 
repeal omitted in the Nebraska bill of 1853? Why was it omitted 
in the original bill of 1854? Why, in the accompanying report, 
was such a repeal characterized as a departure from the course 
pursued in 1850? and its continued omission recommended? 

I am aware Judge Douglas now argues that the subsequent ex- 
press repeal is no substantial alteration of the bill. This argument 
seems wonderful to me. It is as if one should argue that white and 
black are not different. He admits, however, that there is a literal 
change in the bill, and that he made the change in deference to other 
Senators, who would not support the bill without. This proves 
that those other Senators thought the change a substantial one, and 
that the Judge thought their opinions worth deferring to. His own 
opinions, therefore, seem not to rest on a very firm basis, even in 
his own mind ; and I suppose the world believes, and will continue 
to believe, that precisely on the substance of that change this whole 
agitation has arisen. 

I conclude, then, that the public never demanded the repeal of 
the Missouri Compromise. 

THE REPEAL WRONG IN ITSELF. 

I now come to consider whether the repeal, with its avowed prin- 
ciples, is intrinsically right. I insist that it is not. Take the pe- 
culiar case. A controversy had arisen between the advocates and 
opponents of slavery, in relation to its establishment within the 
country we had purchased of France. The southern, and then l)est, 
part of the purchase, was already in as a Slave State. The contro- 
versy was settled by also letting Missouri in as a Slave State ; but 
with the agreement that within all the remaining part of the pur- 
chase, north of a certain line, there should never be slavery. As to 
what was to be done with the remaining part south of the line noth- 
ing was said ; but perhaps tlie fair implication was, that it should 



16 spep:ch of mncoi.n, 

come in with slavirv, if it should so choose. The southern part, 
except :i portion ht'retofore mcntioneil, afterward did eonu- in with 
shiviTV, as the State of Arkansas. 

All tliese many years, since 1820, the northern part had re- 
mained a wilderness. At len-jjth, settlements liejj^an in it also. lu 
due course, Iowa came in as a Free State, and Minne.sota was »;iven 
u Territorial ^'overument, without removing the slavery restriction, 
Finally, the s»»le remaining part, north of the line — Kansas and 
Neltniska — was to be organized ; and it is proposed, and carried, 
to l)lot out the old dividing line of thirty-four years' standing, and 
to open the whole of that country to the introduction of slavery. 
Now this, to my miml, is manifestly unjust. After an angry and 
(hmgerous controversy, the parties made friends by dividing the 
bone of conl«'nti«>n. Tlie one part}' first appropriates her own share, 
beyond all jiower to be disturbed in the possession of it, and then 
seizes the share of the other party. It is as if two starving men 
had divided their only loaf ; the one had hastily swallowed his half, 
and then grabbed the other's half just as he was putting it into his 
mouth. 

.\ I'AIIl iiK MLLAIUKS. 

lift uie liere drop llie main argument, to iiDlice \vh;it 1 consider 
rather an inferior matter. It is argued that slavery will not go to 
Kansas and Nebraska, in any event. This is a palliation — a 
lullaby. I have some hope that it >\ill not ; but let us not be too 
confident. As to climate, a glance at the map shows that there are 
five Slave States — Delaware, Maryhunl, Virginia, Kentucky, and 
Missouri, and al.so the District of C'olumiiia, all north of tlie 
Mi.ssouri Compromise line. The census returns of l>^r»0 show that, 
wiliiin thesi', there are eight hundred and sixty-seven thousand two 
hundred and seventy-six slaves-- Ijeing more than one-fourth of 
all the slaves in the nation. 

It is not cliniatc', then, that will keep slavt-rv ()nt of thcx- Terri- 
tories. Is there anything in the pei-idiar n:itiire of the country".'' 
MinyoMrl adjoins tlic'f 'I'crritc»ries liy her entire western boundarv, 
an<l slavery is already within every one of her western counties. 1 
have even heard it said that there are more slaves in proportion to 
whites in the northwestern c«»unty of Missouri, th.an within any 
oilier c<»unty in the Slat«v Slavery pn'ssed entirely up to the old 
weMt<'rn iKMMnhiry <»f the State, and when, rather rec«-ntly, a part of 

lltiit JwiUIld:il\ :il till- imrlliwist was iiio\.i| mil i lillli' f i it her WCSt 



PEORIA, ILL., OCTOBER 16, 1854. 17 

slavcrj^ followed on (juite up to the new line. Now when the re- 
striction is removed, what is to prevent it from going still farther? 
Climate will not — no peculiarity of the country will — nothing in 
nature will. Will the disposition of the people prevent it? Those 
nearest the scene are all in favor of the extension. The Yankees, 
who are opposed to it, may be most numerous ; but, in military 
phrase, the battle-field is too far from their base of operations. 

But it is said, there now is no law in Nebraska on the su])ject of 
slavery, and that, in such case, taking a slave there operates his 
freedom. That is a good book law, but is not the rule of actual 
practice. Wherever slavery is, it has been first introduced without 
law. The oldest laws we find concerning it, are not laws introduc- 
ing it, but regulating it as an already existing thing. A white man 
takes his slave to Nebraska now. Who will inform the negro that 
he is free? Who will take him before court to test the question of 
his freedom? In ignorance of his legal emancipation, he is kept 
chopping, splitting, and plowing. Others are brought and move on 
in the same track. At last, if ever the time for voting comes on 
the question of slavery, the institution alread}', in fact, exists in the 
country, and can not well be removed. The fact of its presence, 
and the difficulty of its removal, will carry the vote in its favor. Keep 
it out until a vote is taken, and a vote in favor of it can not be got 
in any population of forty thousand on earth, who have been drawn 
together ])y the ordinary motives of emigration and settlement. To 
get slaves mto the Territory simultaneously with the whites, in the 
incipient stages of settlement, is the precise stake played for, and 
* won, in this Nebraska measure. 

The question is asked us : " If slaves will go in, notwithstanding 
the general principle of law liberates them, why would they aot 
equall}' go in against positive statute law — go in, even if the Mis- 
souri restrictions were maintained ! " I answer: Because it takes a 
much bolder man to venture in with his property in the latter case 
than in the former; because the positive Congressional enactment is 
known to,, and respected' by, all or nearly all ; whereas the negative 
principle, that no law is free law, is not much known except among 
lawyers. We have some experience of this practical dilTerence. In 
spite of the ordinance of "87, a few negroes were brought into Illi- 
nois, and held in a state of quasi slavery, not enough, however, to 
carry a vote of the people in favor of the institution, when the}' 
came to form a Constitution. But, in the adjoining Missouri coun- 
try, where there was no ordinance of '87 — was no restriction — they 



18 SPKKCH t)K LINCOLN. 

vivTv canuHl U-n liiiU's, nay, :i humlrcil times, as fast, ami actuall}- 
jiiiuU" ji Slavf Suit*'. This is fact — nuked fact. 

Anotinr liillaliy ar^umt'nt is, that, Takiiij; slavi-s to lu'w coiin- 
trii's litK's nut incri'asi' thrir ninnht-r — dot*s n«»t make any one a shive 
who othenNise would be free. Tliere is some truth in this, and I am 
ghid of it; hut it is not wholly true. The African slave-trade is n<jl 
yet elFectually sujiprt'ssed; and if we make a reasonable deduction 
for the white people amonjj; us who are foreigners, and the descend- 
ants of foreigners, arriving here since IHUS, we shall find the in- 
crease of tiie black population outrunning that of the white, to an 
extent unaccountable, except by sui)posing that some of them, too, 
liave been coming from Africa. If this be so, the opening of new 
countries to the institution increases the demand for. and augments 
the price of, slaves; and so does in fact make slaves of freenu-n, Ity 
causing them to be brought from Africa and .sold into l)ondage. 

But however this may be, we know the opening of new countries 
to slavery tends to the perpetuation of the institution, and so does 
keep men in slavery who would otherwise be free. This result we 
do not feel like favoring, and we are under no legal obligation to 
HUppress our feelings in this respect. 

TllK KKNSK OF JISTICE A.ND HUMA.N SYMPATHY. 

Ecjual justice to the South, it is said, requires us to consent to 
the extension of slavery to new countries. That is to say, inas- 
nuich as you do not object to my taking my hog to Nel»raska, there- 
fore I must not object to your taking your slave. Now, 1 admit 
that this is jHTfectly logical, if tiiere is no difference between hogs 
and negroes. Hut while you thus recpiire me to deny the humanity 
of the negro, 1 wish to ask whether you of the South, yourselves, 
have ever iK'en willing to do as much? It is kindly provided, th.it 
of all those who come into the world, only a small percentage ari- 
natural tyrants. That percentage is no larger in the Slave States 
than in the Kree. 

The great majority South, as well as N<»rlli, iia\e Inunan svnipa- 
thicH, of which they can no more divest themselves, than lliey can 
c»f their Hcnsibility to piiysical pain. These sympathies in the 
ItoHoms of the Soutlu-rn pe<»j»le manifest, in many ways, their sense 
of the wrong of slavery, and their consciousness th.it. after all, 
there- is humanity in the negro. If they deny this, lei nu* address 
tlii-nj a few plain tjueHtionti. In 1820, you joiiu'd the North, almost 
ttnaniinously, in declaring th^ African slave-trade piracy, and in 



PEORIA, ILL.. OCTOBER 10, 18.1 1.. 19 

annexing to it the punisliment of death. Why did you do this? If 
you did not feel that it was wrong, why did you join in providing that 
men sliouUl he hung for it? The practice was no moiT than bring- 
ing Avihl negroes from Africa to sell to such as would buy them. 
li*it you never thought of hanging men for catching and selling wild 
horses, Avild bulTaloes, oviwild bears. 

Again : You have among jou a sneaking individual of the class 
of native tyrants, known as the "slave-dealer." He watches your 
necessities, and crawls up to buy your slave at a speculating price. 
If you can not help it, you sell to him ; but if you can help it, you 
drive him from your door. You despise him utterly. You do not 
recognize him as a friend or even as an honest man. Your children 
must not play with his ; they may rollick freely with little negroes, 
but not with the " slave-dealer's "' children. If you are obliged to 
deal with him, you try to get through the job, without so much as 
touching him. 

It is common with you to join hands with the men you meet ; 
but with the "slave-dealer" you avoid the ceremony — instinctively 
shrinking from the snaky contact. If lie grows rich and retires 
from business, you still remember him, and still keep up the ban of 
non-intercourse upon him and his family. Now, why is this? You 
do not so treat the man who deals in corn, cattle, or tobacco. 

And j-et again : There are in the United States and Territories, 
including the District of Columbia, 433,043 free blacks. At $500 
per head, they are worth over two hundred millions of dollars! 
How comes this vast amount of property to be running about, with- 
out owners? We do not see free horses, or free cattle, running at 
large. How is this? All these free blacks are the descendants of 
slaves, or have been slaves themselves; and they would be slaves 
now, but for something which has operated on their white owners, 
inducing them at vast pecuniary sacrifices to liberate them. What 
is that something ? Is there any mistaking it ? In all these cases, 
it is your sense of justice and human sympathv, continually telling 
you that the poor negro has some natural right to himself — that 
those who deny it, and make mere merchandise of him, deserve 
kickings, contempt, and death. 

And now, why will you ask us to deny the humanity of the 
slave, and estimate him as only the equal of the hog ? Wh}^ ask 
us to do what you will not do yourselves ? Why ask us to do for 
nothing, what two hundred millions of dollars could not induce j'ou 
to do ? 



20 SPEECH or LINCOLN, 

TIIK SACRKK llKillT dF SELK-OOVERXMENT. 

liiil oiu' «:ivat argument in the support of the repeal of the Mis- 
souri Compromise is* sLili to come. That argument is '• the saered 
right i»f self-government. "' It seems our distinguished S.'uator has 
fcuuid great dilficulty in getting his antagcjinists, even in the Senate, 
to meet liim fairly on this argument. Some poet lias said: — 

" FtKtls rush ill wIuti- aii^rrls fi-ar to tnad." 

At tlu' hazard of being thought one of the fools of this quotation I 
meet the argument— I rush in — 1 take that hull l)y the horns. 

I trust 1 understaiKl and truly estimate the right of self-govern- 
ment. My faith in the proposition that each man should do pre- 
cisely as he pleases with all which is exclusively his own, lies at 
the foundation of the sense of justice there is in me. I extend the 
prineiple to eommunities of men, as well as to individuals. I so 
extend it, because it is politically wi.se, as well as naturally just; 
politically wise in saving us from broils about matters which do not 
coui-ern us. Here, or at Wasiiington, I would not troultle myself 
with tlie oyster laws of ^'irginia, or the cranberry laws of Indiana. 

The doctrine of self-government is right — absolutely and etern- 
ally right iiut it has no just application as here atUiupted. Or 
pcrlj:ips I should rather say that whether it has just application, de- 
]H'uds upon whether a negro is not or is a man. If he is not a man, 
in that case lie who is a man, ma}' as a matter of self-government, 
do just what lu- plea.ses with him. 15ut if the negro is a m.m, is it 
not to that extent a total destruction of self-government to say that 
he t<»o shall nt>t govern himself? Wheh the white man governs 
himself, that is self-government ; but when he governs himself, and 
also another man, that is more than self-government — that is des- 
potism. If ill'- negro is a man, why, tlicii my ancient faith tcaclics 
me that "all men are created equal;" .and tliat there can be no 
monil right in connection with (»ne mans making a slave of anotiicr. 

.Judge Douglas fre(|uenlly, with bitter irony and sarcasm, para- 
phraHfg our argunu-nt by saying: 'Tlic while people of Nebraska 
are good enough to govern themselves, l»ut tlicy are not good cMiough 
U) govern a few miseralih* negroes ! " 

Well, I doubt not that the people of Neltraska are, and will i-on- 
tinue to Im- as g(M»d as the average of people clsewliere I iId n<il 
Kay the eiintrary. What I do nay is that no man is good enough to 
govera another man without that other's consent. I say this is the 



PEORIA, ILL,, OCTOBER 1(5, 1851. 21 

leading principle, the sheet-anchor of American Republicanism. 
Our Declaration of Independence sa^'s: — 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created 
equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable 
rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happini-ss. 
That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, i)i> 

KIVING TUEIU JUST POVTERS PROM THE CONSENT OP THE GOVERNED." 

I have quoted so much at this time merely to show that ac- 
cording to our ancient faith, the just powers of governments are 
derived from the consent of the governed. Now, the relation of 
master and slave is 2^''o tduto a total violation of this principle. 
The master not only governs the slave without his consent, but he 
governs him by a set of rules altogether different from those which 
he prescribes for himself. Allow all the governed an equal voice 
in the government ; and that, and that only, is self-government. 

Let it not be said I am contending for the establishment of po- 
litical or social equality between the whites and blacks. I have 
already said the contrary. lam not now combating* the argument 
of necessity, arising from the fact that' the blacks are already 
among us ; but I am combating what "is set up as moi-al argument 
foi allowing them to be taken where they have never yet been — 
arguing against the extension of a bad thing, which, where.it 
already exists, we must of necessitj' manage as we best can. 

THE REVOLUTIONARY FATHERS. 

In support of this application of the doctrine of self-govern- 
ment, Senator Douglas has sought to bring to his aid the opinions 
and examples of our Revolutionary fathers. I am glad he has done 
this. I love the sentiments of those old-time men, and shall be 
most happy to abide by their opinions. He shows us that when it 
WMS in contemplation for the colonies to break off from Great 
Britain and set up a new government for themselves, several of the 
States instructed their delegates to go for the measure, providing 
each State should be allowed to regulate its domestic concerns in its 
own way. 1 do not quote; but this in substance. This was right. 
I see nothing objectionable in it. I also think it proljable that it 
has some reference to the existence of slavery' among them. I will 
not deny that it had. But had it any reference to the carr3nng of 
slavery into new countries ? That is the question, and we will let 
the fathers themselves answer it. 



L'2 SPEP:rH OF LINCOLN, 

The same };«MHT:iti(»i» of mt-ii, aiul mostly tlie sainr iiidivuhials 
"f thf <j;«MU'ration wlio ili-claivd this iiriiKMplc, who tU'chui-d iiuh'- 
I'l'iuK'Urt', who foiij^hl tlie war of the Itfvohitioii tiiroujili, wlio 
iftorwanls mailf the (.'oustitmioii uinlcr wliich we slill live — tliesi- 
-.iiue iiieii passi-W the onliiiaiiee of ST, lUn-lariiig that slavery should 
never p) to the Northwest Territory. 1 have no doiilit .Iiid<^e 
l>tm{;;la.s thinks tliey were very ineonsistent in this. 1 1 is a (jnes- 
r.on of iliserimination between them ami him. 

Hut there is not an ineli of jjronnd left for his elaiminn that 
their opinions, their example, their authority, are on his side in this 
eontrovci^y. 

Afiain, is not Nelmiska, while a Territory, a part of us ? IK) we 
not own the eountry ? And if we surrender the control of it, do we 
not surrender the ri<;ht of self-government ? Jt is part of o.ir- 
selvcs. If you say we shall not control it, because it is only part, 
the same is true of every other ]>m\ ; a:id when all the parts are 
L'one, what has become of the whole ? What is then left (»f us? 
What use for the (leneral (Jovemment, when there is nothing left to 
govern ? 

Hut you say this (piestion should l>e left to the i)eople of Ne- 
braska, because they are more particularly interested. If this be 
the rule, y<»u must leave it to each individual to say for himself 
whether lie will have slaves. What better moral right have tiiirtv- 
one citi/ens of Nebraska to say, that the thirty-second shall not 
hold slaves, than the pe<»ple of thirty-one States have to say that 
slavery shall not go into the thirty-second State at all ? 

liut if it is :i sacn-d right for the people of Nebraska to take 
and hold slaves there, it is etjually their sacred right to buy them 
where tln-y can buy them cheapest ; and, that, undoiditedly, will be 
on the coast of Africa, provided you will consent not to hang them 
for going Iheiv to buy them. Von must remove this restriction, 
t«M», from " the sacred right of self-govennnent. " 1 am aware, von 
say, that talking slaves from the States to Nt'braska does not make 
slaves of freemen ; but the African sl.ive trailer can sav jusl as 
HMK-h. lie (Iocs not catch free n«*gn»es and bring them hen-. lie 
Ibnls them already slaves in the hands of their black caidors, and In 
honestly buys them at the rale of about a red cotton handkerchief a 
head. This ;s very cheap an<l It is a great abridgement of the 
"wicn'd right <if self government " to hang men for engaging in 
thiH profitable trade ! 

Another im|K»rtant objection to this application of (he ri^ht of 
fW'lf -government, i>», that it enables the lirst few to deprive the 



PEORIA, ILL., OCTOBER 10, 1854. 23 

succeeding many of a free exercise of the right of self-government. 
The first few ma}- get slavery in, and the sul)sequent many can not 
easily get it out. How common is the remark now in the Slave 
States : "If we were only clear of our slaves, how much better 
it would be for us." They are actually deprived of the privilege of 
(joverning themselves as they would, by the action of a very few 
in the beginning. The same thing was true of the whole nation at the 
time our Constitution was formed. 

A NATIONAL QUESTION. 

Whether slavery shall go into Nebraska, or other new Territories, 
is not a matter of exclusive concern to the people who may go 
there. The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be 
made of these Territories. We want them for the homes of free 
white people. This they cannot be, to any considerable extent, if 
slavery shall be planted within them. Slave States are places for 
poor white people to remove from ; not to remove to. New Free 
States are the places for poor people to go to, and better their con- 
dition. For this use the nation needs these Territories. 

Still further: there are constitutional relations between the Slave 
and Free States, which are degrading to the latter. We are under 
legal obligations to catch and return their runaway slaves to them, a 
sort of a dirty, disagreeable job which I believe, as a general rule, 
the slave-holders will not perform for one another. Then again, in 
the control of the Government — the management of the partnership 
affairs — they have greatly the advantage of us. By the Constitu- 
tion each State has two senators, each has a number of representa- 
tives, in proportion to the number of its people, and each has a 
number of Presidential electors equal to the whole number of its 
senators and representatives together. 

But in ascertaining the number of the people for this purpose, 
five slaves are counted as being equal to three whites. The slaves 
do not vote ; they are only coimted and so used as to swell the in- 
fluence of the white people's votes. The practical effect of this is 
more aptly shown by a comparison of the States of South Carolina 
and Maine ; South Carolina has six representatives, and so has 
Maine. South Carolina has eight Presidential electors, and so has 
Maine. This is precise equality so far ; and, of course, they are 
equal in senators, each having two. Thus in the control of the Gov- 
ernment, the two States are equals precisely. But how are they in 
the number of their white people ? Maine has 581,813, while South 
Carolina has 274,567 ; Maine has twice as many as South Caroliija, 



L'4 SPEECH OF LINCULX. 

siml 32,079 over. Thus, vnvh white man in South Carolina is more 
than ilouhli' any man in Maine. This is all becanse South C'aii»lina, 
hesiiles her free people has ;;84,!ISi sUives. The iSoulli Carolinian 
has preeisely the siuue mlvanL:ige over tlie white man in every other 
Free SUite as well us in Maine. lie is more than the double of any 
one of us in this erowd. 

'I'he same advantajze, but not to the same extent, is held by all 
the eitizens of the Slave States over those of the Tree; and it is ai;i 
absolute truth, without an exception, that there is no voter in any 
Slave State but who has more le«;al power in the Government than 
any voter in any Free State. There is no instance of exact etpiality; 
and the disadvantxige is against us the whole chapter through. This 
principle, in the agirre<;ate. <rives the slaves in the present Congress 
twenty additional representatives, being seven more than the whole 
majority by which they passed the Nebraska bill. 

Now all this is manifestly unfair ; yet I do not mention it to 
complain of it, in so far as it is already settled. It is in the Consti- 
tution, and I do not for that cause, or any other cause, propose to de- 
stroy, or alter, or disregard the Constitution. I stand to it, fairly, 
fully, and firmly. 

lint when I am told that I must leave it altogether to other peo- 
ple to say whether new partners are to be bred up and brought into 
the tirm, on the same degrading terms against me, I respectfully 
demur. I insist that whether I shall be a whole man, or only the 
part of one, in comparison with othei*s, is a question in which 1 am 
somewhat concerned ; and one wdiicli no other man can have a 
••sacred right" of deciding for me. If 1 am wrong in this — if it 
really be a sacred right of self-governnu-nt, in the man who shall go 
to Nebraska, to decide whether he shall go to Nebraska, to decide 
whether he will be the e(inal of me or the douitK' of me. then, after 
he shall have exercised that right, and therel»y shall have reduced 
me to a still smaller fraction of a man than I already am, I should 
like for s«»me gentleman, deeply skilled in the mysteries of " saered 
rights," to provide himself with a microscope, antl peep about, and 
llnd out, if he «'an, what has beeonn' of my sacri-d rights ! They 
will surely be too sinall for detection with the naked eve. 

I'iiiaiiy, I insist that if there is anything which it is the duty of 
the whole people to never intrust to any hands but their own, that 
thing is the preservation and perpetuity of their own liberties and 
institutions. And if tliey shall think, as I do, that the extension of 
slavery endangers them, more than any or all other causes, how re- 



PEURIA, ILL., OCTOBER 16, 1854. 27) 

creant to themselves if they submit the question, and with it the fate 
of the country, to a mei'e handful of men, bent only on temporary 
self-interest. If this question of slavery extension were an insignifi- 
cant one — one having no power to do harm — it might be sliullk'd 
aside in this way ; but being, as it is, the great Behemoth of danger, 
shall the strong gripe of the nation be loosened upon him, to intrust 
him to the hands of such feeble keepers ? 

I have done with this mighty argument of sejf-goverument. Go, 
sacred thing ! Go, in peace. 

SAVING THE UNION. 

But Nebraska is urged as a great Union-saving measure. Well, 
I too, go for saving the Union. Much as I hate slavery, I would 
consent to the extension of it rather than see the Union dissolved, 
just as I would consent to an}' great evil to avoid a greater one. 
But when I go to Union-saving, I must believe, at least, that the 
means 1 employ have some adaptation to the end. To m}' mind, 
Nebraska has no such adaptation. 

"It hath no relish of salvation in it." 

It is an aggravation, rather, of the only one thing which ever 
endangered the Union. When it came upon us, all was peace and 
quiet. The nation was looking to the forming of new bonds of 
union, and a long course of peace and prosperity seemed to lie before 
us. In the whole range of possibility, there scarcely appears to me 
to have been anything out of which the slavery agitation could have 
been revived, except the very project of repealing the Missouri Com- 
promise. Every inch of territory we owned, already had a definite 
settlement of the slavery questio;i, bj' which all parties were pledged 
to abide. Indeed, there was no uninhabited country on the conti- 
nent w^hich we could acquire; if we except some extreme northern 
regions which are wholly out of the question. 

In this state of affairs, the Genius of Discord himself could 
scarcely have invented a way of again getting us by the ears, but by 
turning back and destro^'ing the peace measures of the past. The 
counsels of that Genius seem to have prevailed; the Missouri Com- 
promise was repealed; and here we are, in the midst of a new slav- 
ery agitation, such, I think, as we have never seen before. Who is 
responsil)Ie for this ? Is it those who resist the measure? or those 
who, causelessly, brought it forward, and pressed it through, having 
reason to know, and in fact, knowing it must and would be resisted? 



26 SPEECH i)F LINCOLN. 

It i«nil(l only Ik' t'xpecti'd liy its author, that it \v<»iihi hi' h)ok('(l 
upon as :i nu-asure for thi* extension of shivery, aijgravatfd 1)V a 
gross breaeli of faith. 

Ar»rue u.s you will, ami lon^ as you will, this is the naked fnnit 
and a.-^pect of tiie measure. AikI in tins a-|ie(t. it (•oiild not hut 
produee a<iitation. Slavery is founded in the selfishness of man's 
nature opposition to it, in his love of justice. These principles are 
an eternal antagonism ; and when brouizht into ct)llisi(tn so fiercely 
as slavery extension hrin^xs them, shoeks, and throes, and convul- 
sions must ceaselessly follow. Repeal the Missouri Compromise — 
repeal all compromises repeal the Declaration of Independence — 
repeal all past history you still can not repeal human nature. It 
still will be the abundance of man's heart that slavery extension is 
wrong ; and out of the abundance of his heart his mouth will con- 
tinue to speak. 

'I'he structure, too, of the Neliraska bill is very peculiar. The 
l>eople are to deciile the (piestion of slavery for themselves; but 
wIhii they are to decide; or how they are t(» decidt'; or whether 
when the (juestion is once decided, it is to remain so or is to be 
subject to an indefinite succession of new trials; the law does not 
say. Is it to be decided by the first dozen settlers who arrive there, 
or is it to await the arrival of a hundred? Is it to be decided by 
u vote of the people'!' or a vote of the Legislature"/ or, indeed by 
a Vole of any .sort? To these questions the law gives no answer. 
There is a mystery about this; for when u member proposed to give 
• the L«'gislature express authorit}' to exclude slavery, it was hooted 
down by the friends of the bill. This fact is worth remembering. 

Some Yankees, in the H.-ist, are sending emigrants to Nebraska, 
to exclude slavery from it: and, so far as I can juilgc. they expect 
the ({uestion to be decided by voting in some wa}' or other. But 
the Mis.Hourians are awake loo. They are within a stone's throw 
of the eonU'sh'd ground. They hold meetings, and pass resolutions, 
in which not the slighU'st allusion to voting is made. They resolve 
that Slavery already exists in the Territory ; that more shall go 
there; that Ihey, n'lnaining in .Missouri, will protect it; and that 
AlHilitioniMlH shall Ik- hung or driven away. Through all this, 
iKiwie-knives and six-shooters are seen plainly enough ; but nevi-r a 
glimpKe of the ballot Ikix. 

And, n-ally, what is t<. be the result of this? Kach parlv 
within, having numerous and determined backers without, is it not 
prolmble thai the c<intest will come to blows and blood-shed? 



PEORIA, ILL., OCTOBER 10, 1851. 27 

Could there be a more apt invention to bring about collision and 
violence, on the slavery question, than this Neljraska project is ? 
I do not charge or l)elieve that such was intended by Congress ; but 
if they had literally formed a ring, and placed champions within it 
to fight out the controversy, the fight could be no more likely to 
come off than it is. And if this fight should l»egin, is it likely to 
take a very peaceful Union-saving turn? Will not the first drop 
of blood, so shed, be the real knell of the Union? 

RESTORE THE COMPROMISE. 

The Missouri Compromise ought to be restored. For the sake 
of the Union it ought to be restored. We ought to elect a hou.se of 
representatives which will vote its restoration. If, b}' any means, 
we omit to do this, what follows? Slavery ma,j or may not, be 
established in Nebraska. But whether it be or not, we shall have 
repudiated — discarded from the councils of the nation — the spirit 
of compromise; for who, after this, will ever trust in a national 
compromise? The. spirit of mutual concession — that spirit which 
first gave us the Constitution, and which has thrice saved the Union 
— we shall have strangled and cast from us forever. 

And what shall we have in lieu of it? The South, flushed with 
triumph and tempted to excesses; the Noilh, betrayed as they be- 
lieve, brooding on wrong and ])arning for revenge. One side will 
provoke, the other resent. The one will taunt, the other def}'. 
One aggravates, the other retaliates. Already a few in the North 
defy all Constitutional restraints, resist the execution of the Fugitive- 
Slave law, and even menace the institution of slavery in the States 
where it exists. Already a few in the South claim the Constitu- 
tional right to take to, and hold slaves in, the Free States — demand 
the revival of the slave trade — and demand a treaty with Great 
Britain, by which fugitive slaves may l)e reclaimed from Canada. 
As yet they are but a few on either side. It is a grave question 
for the lovers of the Union, whether the final destruction of the 
Missouri Compromise, and with it the spirit of all compromise, will 
or will not embolden and embitter each of these, and fatally in- 
crease the number of both. 

But restore the Compromise, and what then? We thereby re- 
store the national faith, the national confidence, the national feel- 
ing of brotherhood. We thereby reinstate the spirit of concession 
and compromise — that spirit which has neyer failed us in past 
perils, and which may be safely trusted for all the future. The 



28 SPEECH OF LIXCOLy, 

SoiiiU ou«;ht to join in doing this. The peace of the n ition is :is 
ilrar to Iheni as to us. In memories of the past and hopes of the 
futuri', they share a.s largely as we. It would he on their part a 
^'reat act— great in its spirit, ami great in its effect. It would lie 
worth to the nation a huiidri'tl years of peace and prosperity. And 
what of sacrifice would they make? They only surrender to us what 
tht-y gave to us for a consideration long, long ago; what they have 
not now aski-d for. struggled, or cared for; what has been thrust 
upon them, not less t<» their own astonishment than to ours. 

IJut it is said we cannot restore it; that though we elect ever}' 
miiid»er of the lower House, the Senate is still against us. It is quite 
true that of the Senators who passed the Nebraska l)ill, a majority 
of the whole Senate will retain their seats in spite of the election.^ 
of this and the next year. But if, at these elections, their sevend 
onstituencies shall clearly express their will against Nebraska, 
will these Senators disregard their will? ^\'iII they neither obey, 
nor make room for those who will? 

Uut even if we fail to technically restore the Compromise, it is 
still a great point to carry, a popular vote in favor of t!ie restora- 
tion. The moral weight of such a vote can not be estimated too 
highly. The authors of Nebraska are not at all satisfied with' the 
ilestruction of the Compromise — an indorsement of this principle 
they proclaim to be the great object. With them, Nebraska alone 
is a small matter — to establish a principle for future use is what 
they particularly desire. 

That future use is to be the planting of slavery wherever in the 
wide world local and unorganized opposition cannot prevent it. 
Now, if you wish to give them this indor.sement, if ^ou wish to 
estal)lish this principle, do so. I shall regret it, but it is your right. 
On the contrary, if you are oppo.sed to the principle — intend to give 
it no such indors«'ment — let no wln-edling, no .sophistry, divert you 
from tiin»wing a din-ct vote against it. 

HT.\.M» Wrril A.NVI!0|>V 'ril.VT ST.WDS KKillT. 

Some men, mostly Whigs, who condemn the repeal of the 
Miiiwiuri Coujpromise, nevertheless hesitate to go for its n-sloration, 
lent they Ik* thrown in c<unpany with thi' Ai>olitionisl. Will iIkv 
dlow UK', as an old Wliitr. to tell tlniu, good luiinorcilly. th:it 1 tliiiiU 
•liis i^ very Hilly ? Stand with anybody that stands right. Stand 
with him while he is right, and part with him when he goc3 wrong. 
.Stand with the AlM)lilioni.>^t in restoring the .Nli.ssuuri t'ompKtuiisc, 



PEORIA, ILL., OCTOBER 16, 1854. 29 

and stand against him when he attempts to repeal the Fugitive-Slave 
law. In the latter case you stand with the Southern disunion iot. 
What of that ? You are still right. In both cases you are right. 
In both cases you oppose the dangerous extremes. In both you 
stand on middle ground, and hold the ship level and steady. In 
both yon are national, and nothing less than national. This is tiie 
good old Whig ground. To desert such ground because of any com- 
pany is to be less than a Whig — less than a man — less than an 
American. 

I particularly' object to the new position which the avowed prin- 
ciple of this Nebraska Iitw gives to slavery in the body politic. I 
object to it because it assumes that there can be moral right in the 
enslaving of one man by another. I object to it as a dangerous 
dalliance for a free people — a sad evidence that feeling prosperity, 
we forget right — that liberty, as a principle, we have ceased to re- 
vere. 

THE FATHERS OF THE REPUBLIC. 

I object to it because the fathers of the republic eschewed and 
rejected it. The argument of "necessity" was the only argument 
they ever admitted in favor of slavery ; and so far, and so far only, 
as it carried them did they ever go. 

They found tlie institution existing among us, which they could 
not help, and they cast blame upon the British king for having per- 
mitted its introduction. 

Before the Constitution they prohibited its introduction into the 
Northwestern Territory, the only country we owned then free 
from it. 

At the framing and adoption of the Constitution, they forebore 
to so much as mention the word " slave," or "slavery," in the whole 
instrument. 

In the provision for the recovery of fugitives, the slave is spoken 
of as a " person held to service or labor." ^ 

In that prohibiting the abolition of the African slave-trade for 

1 In the convention which originated the Constitution, the clause first read, a " person le- 
gally held to service or labor," etc. But the word " legally " was stricken out; thus refusing 
the national sanction even to the legality of slavery, and " making it clear that, in the mean- 
ing of the Constitution, slavery was local and not federal." And the makers of the Consti- 
tution were even more careful than this, that no recognition should be allowed to slavery in 
that instrument. From the " committee of detail " the clause first read, a " person legally 
held to serritude or labor;" but in convention the word "servitude " w;is unanimously 
changed to " service," because " servitude " was thought "to express the condition of slaves, 
'service' an obligation of free persons."— See Bancroft's "History of the Constitution," 
Vol. II, pp. 211, 215; or his " History of the United States," Vol. VI, pp. ojO, 3(52, edition of 
W92.— [a. t. j.] 



;iU SPEECH ()E LINCOLN, 

iwt'iity yt'urs. thai track* is spoken of as " The luignition or impoita- 
liou of siu-h jHTsous as any of the States now exi>stin«5 shall think 
proper to ailinit," etc. 

These are the only provisions alluding to blavi-ry. Tluis the 
thinjjf is hid away in the Constitution, ]ust as an attliited mm hides 
awav a wen or eaneer, whieh he dares not cut out at once lest he 
lileed t<» ileath ; with the promise, nevertlieless, that the eutling 
inav iK'jjin at the end of a certain time. liess than this our fathers 
eould not ilo ; and more they would not do. Necessity drove them 
so far, and farther they would not go. 

lint this is not all. The earliest Congre.ss under the Constitu- 
tion took the same view of slavery. They liedged and hemmed it 
in to the narrowest limits of necessity. 

In 17!U, they prohiluted an out-going slave-trade — that is, the 
takuig of slaves from the United States to sell. 

In 17HS, they prohibited the bringing of slaves from Africa into 
the Mississippi Territory — this Territory then comprising what are 
now the States of Mississippi and Alabama. This was ten years 
iR'fore they had the authority to do the same thing as to the States 
existing at the adoption of the Constitution. 

In 1S0(». they prohiltitcd American citizens from tr;iding ui 
slaves between foreign countries, as, for instance, from Africa to 
Hrazil. 

In lS(i:5. they pas.sed a law in aid of one or two Slave Stale laws, 
in restraint of the internal slave-trade. 

In IS(»7, in apparent hot haste, they pa.ssed the law nearly a 
year in advance, to take elfeet the lirst day of 1808 — the very first 
day the Con.stitution woidd permit — pndidiiling the African slave- 
trade by heavy pecuniary and corporal penalties. 

In I'^liH, fintling these provisions inelfectuai. they declared the 
slave-trade piracy, and annexed to it the extreme penalty of death. 
Wliile all this was passing in the (Jeneral (lovernnient. live or six of 
the original Slave Slates had adopted systems of gradual emancipa- 
tion ; by whieh the inslituti(»n was rapidly becoming e\tin< t within 
tlu'M' liniitH. 

Thus we see the plain, unmistakable spirit of that age, toward 
Blaverv. wan hostility to the principle, and toleration only by 
necessity 

UIK <il 1> .\M> TIIK NKW K.MTII. 

But now It is to be transformed into a "sacred right." Xc- 
bratka brings it forth, ploces it on the high road to extension and 



PEORIA, ILL., OCTOBER 16, 1854. 31 

perpetuity; and with a pat on its back, says to it, "Go and (iod 
sj)eed 30U. " Henceforth it is to be the chief jewel of the nation — 
the ver}^ figure-head of the ship of State. Little by little, but 
steadily as nuin's march to the grave, we have been giving up 
the old for the new faith. Near eighty years ago we began by 
declaring that all men are created equal, but now from that begin- 
ning we have run down to the other declaration, that for some men 
to enslave others is a "sacred right of self-government." These 
principles cannot stand together. They are as opposite as God and 
Mammon ; and whoever holds to the one must despise the other. 

When Pettit, in connection with his support of the Nebraska 
hill, called the Declaration of Independence "a self-evident lie," 
he only did what consistency and candor require all other Nebraska 
men to do. Of the forty odd Nebraska Senators who sat present 
and heard him, no one rebuked him. Nor am I apprised that any 
Nebraska newspaper, or an}- Nebraska orator in the whole nation 
has ever yet rebuked him. If this had been said among Marions 
men. Southerners though they were, what would have become of 
the man who said it? If this had been said to the men who cap- 
tured Andre, the man who said it would probably have been hung 
sooner than Andre was. If it had been said in Old Independence 
Hall, seventy-eight years ago, the very door-keeper would have 
throttled the man and thrust him into the street. 

Let no one be deceived. The spirit of seventy-six and the spirit 
of Nebraska are utter antagonisms ; and the former is being rapidly 
displaced by the latter. 

Fellow-countrymen: Americans South as well as North, shall we 
make no effort to arrest this? Already the liberal party throughout 
the world express the apprehension "that the one retrograde in- 
stitution in America is undermining the principles of progress, and 
fatally violating the noblest political system the world ever saw."' 
This is not the taunt of enemies, but the warning of friends. Is it 
quite safe to disregard it — -to despise it? Is there no danger to 
liberty itself, in discarding the earliest practice, and first precept 
of our ancient faith? In our greedy chase to make profit of the 
negro, let us beware lest we " cancel and tear to pieces " even the 
white man's charter of freedom. 

Our Republican robe is soiled, and trailed in the dust. Let us 
re-purify it. Let us turn and wash it white, in the spirit, if not in 
the blood, of the RcA-olution. Let us turn slavery from its claims of 
•'moral right" back upon its existing legal rights and its arguments 



32 SPEECH »>1^ I.IXcol.N. 

of '• m'rt'ssity." Ia-I lis nturu it to the position our fathers <;:ive it, 
:iiiil ilitTc h't it n-st in pt-ai-c. Let us readopt the Declaration of 
Independence, and with it the practices and palicy which harmonize 
with it. Ia'I Nortli and South — Itt all Americans — let all lovers 
of liberty everywhere — join in the i^real and <foo(l work. If we do 
this, we shall not only have saved the Tnion. hut we shall have so 
saved it as to make, and to keej), it forever worthy of the savinej. 
We shall liave so saved it, that the succeeding millions of free 
happv people, the world over, shall rise up and call us blessed, to 
the latest generations. 

DIRECT REPLIES TO D0UaL.\8. 

At Sprinffficld twelve days a^o, where I had spoken substantially 
as 1 have here. Judge Douglas replied to me — and as he is to re- 
ply to me here, I shall attempt to anticipate him, l»y noticing some 
of the points he made there. He commenced l>y stating I had 
assumed all the way through that the princii)le of the Nebraska Itill 
would have the effect of extending slavery. He denied tiiat this 
was intended or that this effect would follow. 

I will not reopen the argument upon this point. That such was 
the intention, the world Iielieved at the start, and will continue to 
Ix'lieve. This was the countenance of the thing; and both friends 
and enemies instantly recognized it as such. That countenance 
cannot now be changed by argument. You can as easily argue the 
color of the negros skin. Jjike the "bloody hand," you may wash 
it and wash it, the red witness of guilt still sticks, and stares hor- 
ribly at you. 

Next he says, Congre.ssional intervention never prevented slavery 
anywhere — that it did not prevent it in the Northwestern Territory, 
nor in HIinois — that, in fact, Illinois came into the Union as a 
Slave State ~ that the principle of the Nel)raska bill expelled it 
from Illinois, from several old States, from everywhere. 

Now this is mere (juibbling all the w:iy through. If the oniin 
ance of '87 did not keep slavery out nf the Northwest Territory. Iiow 
liapiM'iis it that the nortliw«'st slutie <if the Ohio river is entirely 
free from it, while tin- southeast sliori*, less than a mile dist.ant, 
along nearly the whole length of the rivi-r, is entirely covered 
with it? 

If that ordinance did not kerp it out «)f Illinois, what was it 
that made the diirerence between Illinois and Missouri? They lie 
HJde by »i»U*, the MiHsiHsippi river only tlividing them ; while (heir 



PEORIA, ILL.. OCTOBER IG, 1854. 33 

early settlements were witliiu the same lattitude. Between 1810 
and 1820, the number of slaves in Missouri increased 7,211 ; while in 
Illinois, in the same ten years, they decreased 51. This appears b}' 
the census returns. During nearly all of that ten years both were 
Territories — not States. 

During this time, the ordinance forbade slavery to go into 
Illinois ; and nothing forbade it go into Missouri. It did go into 
Missouri, and did not go into Illinois. That is the fact. Can any 
one doubt as to the reason of it ? 

But, he sa3's, Illinois came into the Union as a Slave State. 
Silence, perhaps, would be the best answer to this Hat contradiction 
of the known history of the country. What are the facts upon 
which this bold assertion is based ? 

When we first acquired the country, as far back as 1787, there 
were some slaves within it, held by the French inhabitants of 
Kaskaskia. The Territorial legislation admitted a few negroes from 
the Slave States, as indentured servants. One year after the adop- 
tion of the first State Constitution, the whole number of them was 
— what do you think ? Just 117 ; while the aggregate free popula- 
tion was 55,094 — -about 470 to 1. Upon this state of facts the 
people framed their Constitution, prohibiting the further introduc- 
tion of slavery with a sort of guarantee to the owners of the few 
indentured servants, gi\'ing freedom to their children to be liorn 
thereafter, and making no mention whatever of any supposed slave 
for life. Out of this small matter, the Judge manufactures his 
argument that Illinois came into the Union as a Slave State. Let 
the facts be the answer to the argument. 

The principles of the Nebraska bill, he says, expelled slavery 
from Illinois. The principle of that bill first planted it here — that 
is it first came because there was no law to prevent it — first came 
before we owned the country ; and finding it here, and having the 
ordinance of '87 to prevent its increasing, our people struggled 
along and finally got rid of it the best they could. 

"But the principle of the Nebraska bill abolished slavery in 
several of the old States." Well, it is true that several of the old 
States, in the last quarter of the last century, did adopt systems of 
gradual emancipation, by which the institution has finally become 
extinct within their limits ; but it may or ma)' not be true that the 
principle of the Nebraska bill was the cause that led to the adoption 
of these measures. It is now more than fifty 3'ears since the last 
of these States adopted its system of emancipation. 
3 



34 SPEFXII (>K LINCOLN. 

If till' N('hni-^k:i hill is the ivul author of these beuevuleat worU^^, 
it is rather ileploralde that it has for so long a time ceased working' 
altogether. Is there not some reason to suspeet that it was the 
prineiple of the devolution and not the principle of the Nel)raska 
bill, tliat led to emancipation in these old States? Leave it to the 
people of these old emancipation States, and I am (juite certain that 
thev will decide that neither that nor any other good thing ever did 
or ever will come of the Nebraska bill. 

In the course of my main argument, Judge Douglas interrupted 
me to say that the principle of the Nebraska Itill was very old ; that 
it originated when God made man, and placed good and evil before 
him, allowing him to choose for himself, being responsible for the 
choice he should make. At the time, I thought this was merely 
playful ; and I answered it accordingly, But in his reply to me, 
he renewed it as a serious argument. In .seriousness, then, the 
facts of this proposition are not true as stated. God did not place 
good and evil before man. telling him to make his choice. (Jn the 
contrary, he ditl tell him there was one tree, of the fruit of which 
he should not eat, upon pain of certain death. 1 should scarcely 
wish so strong a prohibition against slavery in Nebraska. 

Hut this argument strikes me as not a little remarkable in an- 
other particular — in its strong resemblance to the old argument 
for the • Divine right of kings." By the latter the king is 
to do just as he pleases with his white subjects, being respon- 
siljle to (I<nl alone. By the former, the white man is to do just as 
he pleases with his black slaves, being responsible to God alone. 
The two things are precisely alike; and it is but natur.il that they 
should find simil.-ir arguments to sustain them. 

I had argued that tlie application of the piiiuiplc of self-gov- 
ernment, as contended for, would n(|uire tlu- revival of the African 
slave trade — that no argment could lie made in favor of a man's 
right to Lake slaves to N«'liraska. which could not be equally well 
made in favor of his right to bring them from the coast of Africa. 
The .Iuilg«' replied that the Constitution re(iuire8 the suppression 
(»f the foreign slave-trade; but does n<»t require the prohibition of 
slavery in the Territories. That is a mistake, in point of fact. 
The Constitution does not re<juire the action of Congress in either 
PUHo ; anil it c1<k's authorize it in \»>\\\. And so, tlu-re is still no 
<lifTerence between the cases. 

In regard to what I have said of the advantage the Slave States 
b«ve over the Free, in the matter of representation, the Judge replied 



PEORIA. ILL., 0C;T0BER 10, 1854. 35 

that we, in the Free States, count live free negroes as five white peo- 
ple, while in the Slave States they count five slaves as three whites 
only; and that the advantage, at last, was on the side of the Free 
States. 

Now, in the Slave States, they count free negroes just as we do; 
and it so happens that, besides their slaves, the}' have as many free 
negroes as we have, and thirly-three thousand over. Thus, their 
free negroes more than balance ours ; and their advantage over us, 
in consequence of their slaves, still remains as I stated it. 

In reply to my argument, that the Compromise Pleasures of 1850 
were a system of equivalents, and that tlic provisions of no one of 
Ihem could fairly be carried to other subjects, without its corres- 
ponding equivalent being carried with it, the Judge denied outright 
that these measures had any connection with or dependence upon 
each other. This is mere desperation. If the}' had no connection, 
why are they always spoken of in connection? Why has he so 
spoken of them a thousand times? Why has he constantly called 
(iiem a series of measures? Why does every body call them a 
compromise ? Why was California kept out of the Union, six or 
seven months, if it was not because of its connection with the other 
measures ? Webster's leading definition of the verb, ' ' to compro- 
mise,'' is, " to adjust and settle a difference, by mutual agreement, 
with concessions of claims by the parties." This conve3's precisely 
the popular understanding of the word "compromise." 

We knew, before the Judge told us, that these measures passed 
separately, and in distinct bills; and that no two of them v.ere 
passed by the votes of precisely the same members. But we also 
know, and so does he know, that no one of them could have passed 
both branches of Congress, but for the understanding that the oth- 
ers were to pass also. Upon this understanding, each got votes, 
which it could have got in no other way. It is this fact which gives 
to the measures their true character; and it is the universal knowl- 
edge of this fact, that has given them the name of "Compromises," 
so expressive of that true character. 

UTAH AND NEW MEXICO. 

I had asked, "if in carrying the provisions of the Utah and 
New Mexico laws to Nebraska, you could clear away otiier objection, 
how can you leave Nebraska ' perfectly free ' to introduce slavery 
before she forms a Constitution, during her Territorial government; 
while the Utah and New Mexico laws only authorized it when they 



3i; SPEECH <iF LINCOLN, 

form Constitutions, and arc adinilU-il into llu' I'nion ? " To this 
Judge Douglas answered that the Utah and New Mexico laws also 
authori/etl it hefon-, and to prove this, lie read from one of their 
laws, as follows: — 

"That the lopislntivc power of said Territory sliall oxti-nd to all riijhtfii; 
subj«'c*t.s of lejiislution. consistent with the Constitution of tin- rniicd 
States an«> the provisions of this act." 

Now it is perceived from the reading of this, that there is noth- 
ing express upon the suliject; but that Hie aulhority is sought to be 
implied merely, for the general provisions of "all rightful suiijects 
of legislation. " In reply to this I insist, as a legal rule of construc- 
tion, as well as the plain popular view of the matter, that the ex- 
press i)rovision for Utah and New Mexico coming in with slavery if 
thcv choose, when they shall form Constitutions, is an exclusion of 
all implied authority on the same subject; that Congress having the 
subject distinctly in their minds, when they made the express pro- 
\ision. tlicy therein expressed their whole meaning on that subject. 

OIIKCOV AM» AVASIIINOTON. 

The Judge ral.ier insinuated that T had found it convenient to 
forget the Washington Territorial law passed in 1853. This was a 
division of Oregon, organizing the northern part as the Territory of 
Washington. He asserted, that by this act the ordinam-e of 87, 
theretofore existing in Oregon, was repealed; that nearly :ill the 
nienilicrs of Congress voted for it. beginning in the House of liepre- 
sentalives with Charles Allen, of Massachusetts, and ending with 
Kichard Vates of Illinois; and that he could not understand how 
those who now opp[>o.se the Neinaska bill, so voted there, unless it 
was because it was then too soon after both the great political part- 
ies ha«l ratified the Compromises of 1S50, and thi' ratification there- 
fore too fresh to be tlu'U repudiated. 

Now I had seen the Washington act before; and I have carefully 
examinetl it since; and I aver that there is no repeal of the ordin- 
ance of 'S7 or of any proliiliitioii of slavery in it. 

In express terms, there is absolut<*ly nothing in the whole law 
ii|MHi the subject; in fact, nothing to lead a reader to think 
oi tiu' subject. To my judgment it is etpially free from every- 
thing from which repeal can be legally implied; Vnit, however this 
may U-, are men now to bi* cntrappc<l by a legal implication, 
oxtnicted from covert language, introduced, perhaps, for tiic very 
ptirjKiMc of entrapping tln-m? 1 sincerely wish every man could 



PEORIA, ILL., OCTOBER IG, 1854. 37 

read this law quite through, carefully watching everj^ sentence, and 
every line, for a repeal of the ordinance of '87, or anything equiva- 
lent to it. 

Another point on the Washington act. If it was intended to be 
modeled after the Utah and New Mexico acts, as Judge Douglas in- 
sists, wh}" was it not inserted in it, as in them, that Washington 
was to come in with or without slavery as she may choose at the 
adoption of her Constitution? It has no such provision in it; and I 
defy the ingenuity of man to give a reason for the omission, other 
than that it was not intended to follow the Utah and New Mexico 
laws in regard to the question of slaver}'. 

The Washington act not only differs vitally from the Utah and 
New Mexico acts, but the Nebraska act differs vitally from both. 
By the latter act the people are left "perfectly free" to regulate 
their own domestic concerns, etc. ; but in all the former, all their 
laws are to be submitted to Congress, and if dis;ipproved are to jje 
null. The Washington act goes even further; it absolutely prohibits 
the Territorial legislature, by very strong and guarded language, from 
establishing banks or borrowing money on the faith of the Territory. 
Is this "the sacred right of self-government" we hear vaunted so 
much? No, sir; the Nebraska bill finds no model in the acts of "50, 
or the Washington act. It finds no model in any law from Adam 
till to-day. As Phillips says of Napoleon, the Nebraska act is 
"grand, gloomy, and peculiar; wrapped in the solitude of Us own 
originality, without a model and without a shadow upon the earth. ' 

In the course of his reply, Senator Douglas remarked, in sul)- 
stance, that he had always considered this Government was made 
for the white people and not for the negroes. Wh}', in point of 
mere fact, I think so too. But in this remark of the Judge there is 
a significance which I think is the key to the great mistake (if there 
is an}"^ such mistake) which he has made in this Nebraska measure. 
It shows that the Judge has no very vivid impression that the negro 
i3 a human; and consequently has no idea that there can be any 
moral question in legislating about him. In his vicAv, the questions 
of whether a new country shall be slave or free, is a matter of as 
utter indifference, as it is whether his neighbor shall plant his farm 
with tobacco, or stock it with horned cattle. Now whether this 
view be right or wrong, it is very certain that the great mass of 
mankind take a totally different view. They consider slavery a 
great moral wrong; and their feeling against it is not very evan- 
escent, but eternal. It lies at the very foundation of their sense 



38 SPEECH or I.INCOLX. 

of just iff, ami it i-aiiimt lit- tiillfil with. It is a j^reat and diiralilf 
fU'UU'iit of i»ii|iiilai- aflioii, and. I think, no statfsuian can safoiy 
ilisifjianl it. 

Our Senator also objffts that thosf who oppose hiui in this 
nicasurf do not fnliivly aj^ref with one another. He rfniimls nie 
that ill my firm adhfreuff to the Coustitutioual rights of the Slave 
States, I differ Widely from (»tlH is who are co-operating with me 
in «)pposing the Nebraska iiill; ami he says it is not quite fair to 
oppose him in this variety of ways. He should remember that he 
took us by surprise — astounded us — by this measure. We were 
thunderstruck and stunned; and we reeled and fell in utter confu- 
sion. But we rose each lighting, grasping whatever we could first 
reach — a sfythe — a pitchfork — a chopping-ax, or a butchers 
cleaver. We struck in the direction of the sound; and we are rap- 
idly closing in upon him. He must not think to divert us from our 
purpose by showing us that our drill, our dress, and our weajxms, 
are not entirely perfect and uniform. When the storm shall be 
passetl, hi' sIkiII liml us still .Vmericans; no less devoted to the eon- 
linued union and prosperity of the country than heretofore. 

Finally the Judge invokes against me the memory of Clay and 
of Webster. They were great men, ami men of great deeds. l>ul 
where have I assailed them? For what is it that their life-long 
enemy shall now make profit liy assuming to defend tiu'in against 
me, their life-long friend? I go against the repeal of the Missouri 
Compromise; did they ever go for it? They went for the Compro- 
mises of 1850; did I ever go against them? 'i'iuy were greatly de- 
voted to the rnion; to the small measure of my ability was I ever 
le.ss so? Clay and Weltster were dead before this (piestion arose; 
by wlu'.t authority shall our Senator say tiiey would esimuse his side 
of it, if alive? .Mr. Clay was the leading spirit in making the 
.Missouri Compromist-; is it very crediltle that if now alive, he would 
take the lead in the breaking <if it? The truth is that some support 
from Whigs is now a necessity with the .Judge, and fortius it is tint 
tiie names of Clay and Webster are now invoked. His old friends 
liave deserted him in sueh niiiiiliers as to leave too few to live Ity. 
He came to his own. and his own received him not. and lol he turns 
unto the (ffiitilcs 

A W(»nl now as to tlie Judge s (lesperate assumption that the 
Compromises of iS.'iU ha<l no connection with oiu' another; that 
Hlin«iis fuine into the Inion as a Slave Stale; and some other simi- 
lar ones. This is no other than a bold deinal of the histor\' of the 



PEORIA, ILL., OCTOBER 16, 1854. 39 

country. If we do not know that tlie Compromises of 1850 were 
dependent on euch other; if we do not know tiitit Illinois came into 
the Union as a free State — w'e do not know anything. If we do 
not know these things, we do not know that we ever had a Revolu- 
tionary war, or such a chief as Washington. To deny these things 
is to deny our national axioms — or dogmas at least; and it puts 
an end to all argument. If a man will stand up, and assert, and 
repeat, and re-assert, that two and two do not make four, I know 
nothing in the j)ower of argument that can stop him. I think [ 
can answer the Judge so long as he sticks to the premises; but wlu-n 
he flies from them, I cannot work an argument into the consistency 
of a mental gag, and actually close his mouth with it. In such a 
case I can only commend him to the seventy thousand answers just 
in from Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Indiana. 



"APPEAL TO THE PEOPLE." 

[This splendid speech was delivered in the Court House, at Springfield, 
111., in 1855, to only two persons. Mr. Herndon, Lincoln's law-partner, had 
put out great Haring posters announcing the meeting; employed a band to 
march, playing, through the streets to call the people together; and had 
bells rung — but only two persons were present. These two were Mr. Hern- 
don himself, and the janitor of the building — and it is not certain that the 
janitor was present for any other reason than that being in charge of the 
hall, his duties required that he should be there. He ma3% however, have 
been tliere by choice as well as by duty. The speech shows that Lincoln had 
such absolute faith in his principles, that he would still "appeal to the 
people " when the peoi:)le who were best acquainted with him — the people 
of his own home town — would not listen to him. And by this faith in his 
principles, not onl}- those people, but the people of the whole nation, and 
even the world, were brought to listen to him, as still they do.] 

Gentlemen: This meeting is larger than I knew it would he, 
as I knew Herndon [Lincoln's partner] and myself would come, but 
I did not know that any one else would be here; and yet another has 
come — you, John Paine [the janitor]. 

These are bad times, and seem out of joint. All seems dead, 
dead, DEAD ; but the age is NOT yet dead ; it liveth as sure as our 
Maker liveth. Under all this seeming want of life and motion, the 
world does move nevertheless. Be hopeful. And now let us adjourn 
and appeal to the people. 



T'TAIl. KANSAS. AND TIIK DKED SCOTT DECISION. 

J)eUtered in liiprtttntatins' JInll. Sjtriiii/Jitltl, III., June JG, 1S.J7. 

Fellow-Citizens: I :im ht-ri' to-ni<>;lit. partly l»y tin- invitation 
of some of you. and partly by luy own inclination. Two wct'ks a«io. 
Jiulgi- Douglas spokf litTt' on the several subjects of Kansas, the 
Dred Seott decision, and Utah. I listened to the speech at the 
time, and have read the report of it since. It was intended to con- 
trovert opinions which I think just, and to assail (pf>litically, not 
personally ) those men who, in common witli me, entertain those 
opinions. For this reason I wished then, and still wish, to make 
some answer to it, which I now take the opportunity of doing. 

UTAH. 

I l>egin with Utah. If it prove to be true, as is probable, that 
the people of UUdi are in open rebellion to the United States, then 
Jutlge Douglas is in favor of repealing their Territorial organization, 
and attaching them to tlii» adjoining States for judicial purposes. I 
say, too, if they are in rebellion, they ought to be somehow coerced 
to ol)edience; and I um not now prepared to admit or deny that the 
Judge's mode of coercing them is not as good as any. The Kepub- 
licans can fall in with it, without taking back anything they have 
ever said. To be sure, it would lie a considerable backing down liy 
Judge Douglas from his much-vaunted doctrine of self-government 
for the Territories; but this is only additional proof of what was 
very plain from the beginning, that that doctrine was a mere deceit- 
ful pretence for the iM-nefit of slavery. Tho.se who could not see 
that much in the Nebraska act ilself, which forced governors and 
secretaries, and judges, on the pi-ople of tlii' Territories, without 
their choice or consent, i-onld not In- made to see, though one should 
ri.se from the dead. 

iJut in all this, it is very plain the .ludge evades the only ((Uestion 
the I'epnblicans have ever pressed upon the iK'mocracy in regard to 
Utali. That (pieHtion tiie Judge well knew to be this: " If the 
petiple of Utah shall peacefully form a State Constitution tolerating 
|K)lygamy. will the Democracy admit them into the Union? ' Thi-re 
ifl notliin^ in the United States Constitution «ir law against p«»lygamy ; 
und why is it not a part(»f the Judge's " sacred right of self-govern- 

[•>"1 



SPRINGFIELD, ILL., JUNE 26, 1857. 41 

ment" for the people to have it, or nither to kcci) il, if the}' choose? 
These questions, so far as I know, the Judge never answers. It 
might involve the Democracy to answer them either way, and thev 
go unanswered. 

KANSAS. 

As to Kansas. The substance of the Judge's speech on Kansas 
is an effort to put the Free-State men in the wrong for not voting at 
the election of delegates to the Constitutional Convention. He 

says :— 

"There is ever}' reason to lioix' and believe that the law will be fairly 
interpreted and impartially executed, so as to insure to every bona fide in- 
habitant the free and (juiet exercise of the elective franchise." 

It appears extraordinary that Judge Douglas should make such 
a statement. He knows that, by the law, no one can vote who has 
not been registered ; and he knows that the Free-State men place their 
refusal to vote on the ground that but few of them have been regis- 
tered. It is possible this is not true, but Judge Douglas knows it is 
asserted to be true in letters, newspapers, and public speeches, and 
borne by every mail, and blown by every breeze to the eyes and ears 
of the world. He knows it is boldly declared that the people of 
whole counties, and many whole neighborhoods in others, are left 
unregistered ; yet he does not venture to contradict the declaration, 
or to point out how they can vote without being registered ; but he 
just slips along, not seeming to know there Is any such question of 
fact ; and comi^lacentl}' declares : — 

"There is everj- reason to hope and believe that the law will be fairly 
interpreted and impartiality executed, so as to insure to everj' bona fide 
inhabitant the free and quiet exercise of the elective franchise." 

I readily agree that if all had a chance to vote, they ought to 
have voted. If, on the contrary, as they allege, and Judge Douglas 
ventures not to particularly contradict, few only of the Free-State 
men had a chance to vote, they were perfectly right in staying from 
the polls in a bod}'. 

By the way, since the Judge spoke, the Kansas election has 
come off. The Judge expressed his confidence that all the Demo- 
crats in Kansas would do their duty — including " Free State Demo- 
crats" of course. The returns received here, as yet, are very incom- 
plete ; but so far as they go, they indicate that only about one-sixth 
of the registered voters have really voted ; and this, too, when not 
more, perhaps, than one-half of the rightful voters have been regis- 



42 i^PEECH OF I.lNlOIA". 

li'iv«l, thus showin;.' llu- tliiii<x to li:i\t' Ik-i'ii :ilt(>;j:etlH'r tho most 
exquisite farce ever enarted. I am watehiiij^ witli i-onsideniljle in- 
terest, to ftscertaiu what ligure '• tiie Free-Stale Democrats ' cut in 
the concern. Of course they voted — all Democrats do their duty — 
ami of course tliey did not vote for Shive-State caiidi(hites. We 
soon sliall know how many delegates they elected, how many candi- 
dutcs they had |)ledged to a Free State, and how many votes were 
cast for them. 

All<»w me to haivly wliLspcr my .sns[)icions that there were no 
such things in Kansas as " Free-State Democrats " — that they were 
altogether mythical, good only to figure in newspapers and speeches 
in the Free Stiites. If there .should prove to be one real living 
Free-State Democrat in Kansas, I suggest tkat it might be well to 
catch him, and stulf and preserve his skin as an interesting speci- 
men of that soon to be extinct variety of the genus Democrat. 

THE IHIKK SCOTT DECISION. 

And now as to the Dred Scott decision. That decision declares 
two proi>ositi(jns — tirsl that a negro can not sue in tlie United States 
("•nirl.s ; and secondly, that Congress can not prohibit slavery in the 
Territories. It was made liy a divided court — dividing diti'erently 
on the different points, .fudge Douglas does not discuss the merits 
of the decision ; and in that respect, I sliall follow his example, lie- 
lieving I could no more improve on McLean and Curtis, tiian he 
could on Taney. 

lie denounces all who (|uesti(»M the correctness of that decision, 
a-s olfering violent resistance to it. Hut who resists it ? Who has. 
In spite of the decision, declared Dretl Scott fn-e. and resisted the 
authority of iiis master over him ? 

Judicial decisions have two uses first, to absolutely determine 
the case decided ; and secondly to indicate to the public how other 
similar cases will be decided when they arise. For the latter use, 
they are called " precedents " and •• authorities." 

We believ«' as much as Judge Douglas (perhaps more) in obedi- 
ence to, un<l respect for, the judicial department of the (lovernment. 
We think its decisions «»n T'onstitutional (|uestions, wlien fully settled, 
Mhoid<l control, not only the particidar cases di-cidcd. but the gen- 
eral policy of the country, subject to l>e disturbe<l oidy Ity amend- 
nientH of the Constitution as providetl in that instrument it.self. 
More than this would l)C revolution. Mut we ihiiik the Dred Scott 
decision in errtjueous. We know the court that made it ha::* often 



SPRINGFIELD, ILL. JUNE 2(5, 1857. 43 

overruled its own decisions, and we sliull do wLiaL we can to have it 
overrule this. We oll'er no resistance to it. 

Judicial decisions are of greater or less authority as precedents, 
according to circumstances. That this should be so, accords hotli 
with common sense, and the customary understanding of the legal 
profession. 

If this important decision had been made by the unanimous con- 
currence of the judges; and without any apparent partisan bias; and 
in accordance with legal public expectation; and with the steady 
pi'actice of the departments throughout our histor}'; and had been, 
in no part, based on assumed historical facts which are not really 
true; or, if wanting in some of these, it liad been before the court 
more than once, and had there been affirmed and re-affn-med through 
a course of years; it then might be, perhaps would be, factious, nay, 
even revolutionary, not to acquiesce in it as a precedent. 

But when, as it is true, we fuid it wanting in all these claims to 
the public confidence, it is not resistance, it is not factious, it is not 
even disrespectful, to treat it as not having yet quite established a 
settled doctrine for the country. J3ut Judge Douglas considers this 
view awful. Hear him: — 

"The courts are th(i tribunals prescribed by the Constitution and cre- 
ated by the authority of the people to determine, expound, and enforce tli" 
law. Hence, whoever resists the final decision of the highest judicial tri- 
bunal, aims a deadly blow at our whole Republican system of government — a 
blow, which, if successful, would place all our rights and liberties at the mercy of 
passion, anarchy, and violence. I repeat, therefore, that if resistance to the 
decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in a matter like the 
points decided in the Dred Scott case, clearly within their jurisdiction as 
defined by the Constitution, shall be forced upon the country as a political 
issu(>, it will become a distinct and naked issue between the friends and enemies 
of the Constitution — the friends and the enemies of the supremacy of the laws." 

Why, this same Supreme Court once decided a national bank to 
be constitutional; but General Jackson, as President of the United 
States, disregarded the decision, and vetoed a bill for a re-charter, 
partly on constitutional ground, declaring that each public function- 
ary must support the Constitution, "as he understands it." But 
hear the general's own words. Here they are, taken from his veto 
message : — 

"It is maintained by the advocates of the bank, that its constitution- 
ality in all its features, ought to be considered as .settled by precedent, and 
by the decision of the Supreme Court. To this conclusion I can not assent. 
Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority, and should not be re- 



J J SPEECH OP LINCOLN. 

fjHrded as lU'ciiliiig questions of tonstitutiidial jxiwcr, cxcoi)! wlu're tli.- uc- 
<|iii«'srriic<' of tlu' iM'ople iinU tlie Stuli-s can br coabidiTi-d as well as si-lll.-d. 
So Inr from this brin^' tlu* case on this subject, an ar;,'umi'iil a^'ainst tiie 
b.mU tni^'lil bo based un precedent. One Conf^ress in 1 TiM, decided in lavor 
t»fa bank- lumllier in 1811, decided ai,'aiiisl it. One Co:i;;n'SS in 1815 de- 
cided u^rainsl a bank; another, in 181(5, decided in its favor. Prior to tlje 
pri'sent Conu'ress. tlienfore. the precedents drawn from that source were 
e(|nal. if we resort to tlu^ Slates, the expressions of legislative, judicial, 
anil e.\>'cutive opinions against the bank have been probably to iliose in its 
favor as four to one. There is nothing in precedent, tlierefore, which, if 
its authority were admitted, ought to weigh in favor of tlie act before me." 

I drop the quot^ition iiierel}' to remark, that all there ever was, 
iu the way of precedent up to the Dred Scott decision, on the points 
tlierein deeidi'tl, has been against that decision. But hear General 
.lacksDU furtlier: — 

"If tlie opinicm of tlie Supreme Court covered the whole ground of 
this act, it ought not to control the co-ordinate authorities of this Govern- 
ment. The Congress, the executive, and the Court, must each for itself 
be guided by its own opinions of the Constitution. Each public otlicer, 
who takes an oath to support the Constitution, swears that he will supiHjrt 
it as he understands it, and not as it is undi-rstood by others." 

And again and again have I heard Judge Douglas denounce that 
hank decision, and applaud General Jackson for disregarding it. 
It would i»e interesting for him to look over his recent speech, and 
see how exactly his fierce philippics against us, for resisting Supreme 
Court decisions, fall upon his own head. It will call to mind a long 
and fierce iMjlitical war in this country, upon an issue which, in his 
own language, and, of course, in his own changeless estimation, 
was "a distinct issue hetweeii tlu^ friends and the enemies of the 
Con.stitution ;" and in which war he fought in the ranks of "the 
enemies of the Constitution." 

I have said, in substance, that the Dred Scott decision was, in 
part, based on assumed historical facts which were not really true; 
and I ought not to leave the subject without giving some reasons for 
saying this. I therefore give an instance or two, which I think 
fully sustain me. Chief .Justice Taney, in delivering the opinion 
of the majority of the Court, insists at great length that negroes 
were no part of the people who made, or for whom was made, the 
Declaration of hnh'peiidence, or the Constitution of the rnited 
StateH. 

On the contrary, .hulge C'urtis, in his dissenting opinion, shows 
tliat in five of the tlien tliirteen Stati's, to-wit: New ilauipshire, 



SPRINGFIELD, ILL., JUNK 2(), 1857. 45 

Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey and North Carolina, free 
negroes were voters; and, in pr()i)oition to their numbers, had the 
same part in making the Constitution that tlie wliite people had. 
He shows this with so much particularity as to leave no doubt of its 
truth, and as a sort of conclusion on that point, holds the followin*"- 
language : — 

"The Constitution was ordained and established by liie people of lb" 
United States, through the action, in each State, of those persons who 
were qualified by its laws to act thereon in behalf of themselves and all 
other citizens of the State. In some of these States, as we have seen, 
colored persons were among these qualified by law to act on the subject. 
These colored persons were not only included in tbe body of the United 
States, by whom the Constitution was ordained and established, but in at 
loast five of tiie States, they had the power to act, and, doubtless, did act, 
by their sufi'rages, upon the question of its adoption." 

Again, Chief Justice Taney saj's : — 

" It is dilikult, at this day, to realize the state of public opinion in re- 
lation to that unfortunate race, which prevailed in the civilized and 
enlightened portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence, and when tht; Constitution of the United States was framed and 
adopted " 

And again, after quoting from the Declaration, he says: 

" Tlie general words above quoted would seem to include the whole hu- 
man family, and if tliey were used in a similar instrument at tiiis day, 
would be so understood." 

In these words the Chief Justice does not directly assert, but 
plainly assumes, as a fact, that the public estimate of the black 
man is more favorable now than it wt\s in the days of the Revolu- 
tion. This assumption is a mistake. In some trifling particulars, 
the condition of that race has been ameliorated ; but as a whole, in 
this country, the change between then and now is decidedly the 
other way ; and their ultimate destiny has never appeared so hope- 
less as in the last three or four j'ears. In two of the .five States — 
New Jersey and North Carolina — that then gave the free negro the 
right of voting, the right has since been taken away; and in a third 
— New York — it has been greatly abridged; while it has not been 
extended, so far as I know, to a single additional State, though the 
number of the States has more than doubled. 

In those days, as I understand, masters could, at their own 
pleasure, emancipate their own slaves; but since then, such legal 
restraints have been made upon emancipation, as to amount almost 



ir, SPKECIl OK LINCOLN, 

t«) proliiliilioM. In those days, LfgiHlatun's liclil tin- '.iiujiifsiioiictl 
|H)\vi'r to iil)olish slavery in their respective SUites; hut now it is In - 
eoniinj; (juite fushionahic for State Constitutions to withhohl thai 
pow* r from the Le<;ishitures. In those (hiys, by comujon eonsent, 
the spread of the Ijhiek man's hon(la<;e to the new countries was 
prohihiled. hut now, Congress decides that it will not continue tlie 
pn»hihition; and the Supreme Court decides that it could not if it 
would. 

TIIK DKPLARATION OK INUKPKNDEXCE. 

In those days, our Declaration of Independence was lield sacred 
by all, and thought to include all; but now, to aid iu n)aking the 
bondage of the negro universal and eternal, it is assailed, and 
sneered at. and construed, and hawked at, and torn, till, if its framers 
could rise from their graves, they could not at all recognize it. All 
the jx)wers of earth seem rapidly combining against him. Mammon 
is after him. ambition follows, philosophy follows, and the theology 
of the day is fast joining the cry. They have him in his prison- 
house; they have searched his pereon, and left no prying instruments 
with him. One after another they have closed the heavy iron 
doors ui)on him; and now they have him, as it were, Itolted in with 
a lock of a hundred keys, which can never be unlocked without the 
concurrence of every key; the keys in the hands of a hundred dif- 
ferent men, and they scattered to a hundred dilTerent and distant 
places; and they stand musing as to what invention, in all the do- 
minions of mind and matter, can be produced to make the impossi- 
bility of his escape more compli-te than it is. 

It is grossly incorrect to say or assume that the public estimate 
<if the negro is more favorabh- now than it was at the origin of '.he 
(lovernmcnt. 

Three years and a half ago. Judge Douglas brought forward his 
famous Nebraska bill. The country was at once in a blaze. He 
scorned all o])position, and carried it through Congress. Since then 
he lias seen him.self superceded in a Presidential nomination, by one 
indorsing tin- general doctrine of his measure, but at the same time 
sUmdiug c-lcar of the <Mlium of ita untimely agitation, and its gross 
breacli of natiotud faith; and he has seen that successful rival con- 
Hlitutioisally i-lected, not by strength of friends, but by the division 
<if adversjiri«'s, b«'ing in u popular minority of nearly four hundred 
IhoUHund Vfitos. He has seen his chief aids in his own Stale, 
Shield** and Kichurdbon, politically speaking, successively tried, con- 



SPRINGFIELD. ILL., JUNE 26, 1857. 47 

victed, and executed, for ;ni ofl'ense not tlieir own, but his. And 
now he sees his own case standing next on the docket for trial. 

There is ti natural disgust in tlie minds of nearly all white peo- 
ple, at the idea of an indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and 
I)lack races ; and Judge Douglas is evidently basing his chief hope 
ui)on the chances of his being able to appropriate the benefit of this 
disgust to himself. If he can, by much drumming and repeating, 
fasten the odium of that idea upon his adversaries, he thinks he can 
struggle through the storm. He therefore clings to this hope, as a 
drowning man to the last plank. He makes an occasion for lugging 
it in from the opposition to the Dred Scott decision. He finds the 
Repulilicans insisting that the Declaration of Independence includes 
all men, l)lack as well as white ; and forthwith he boldly denies that 
it includes negroes at all, and proceeds to argue gravely that all who 
contend it does, do so only because they want to vote, and eat, and 
sleep, and marry with the negroes ! He will have it that they can 
not be consistent else. Now I protest against the counterfeit logic 
which concludes that, because I do not want a black woman for a 
slave, I must necessarily want her for a wife. I need not have her 
for either. I can just leave her alone. In some respects she cer- 
tainly is not my equal ; but in her natural right to eat the bread 
she earns with her own hands without asking leave of any one else, 
she is my equal, and the equal of all others. 

Chief Justice Taney, in his opinion in the Dred Scott case, ad- 
mits that the language of the Declaration is broad enough to include 
the whole human family ; but he and Judge Douglas argue that the 
authors of that instrument did not intend to include negroes, by the 
fact that they did not at once actually place them on an equality 
with the whites. Now this grave argument comes to just nothing 
at all, by the other fact, that they did not at once, or ever after- 
wards, actually place all white people on an equality T>uth one 
another. And this is the staple argument of both tlie Chief Justice 
and the Senator, for doing this obvious violence to the plain, unmis- 
takable language of the Declaration. 

I think the authors of that notable instrument intended to in- 
clude all men ; luit they did not intend to declare all men equal in 
all respects. They did not mean to say all were equal in color, size, 
intellect, moral developments, or social capacit3^ They defined 
with tolerable distinctness, in what respects they did consider all 
men created equal — equal with "certain inalienable rights, among 
which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." This they 



48 SPEFX'Il OF LINCOLN, 

sn'ul. and this tht-y im-aiit. Tlit-y ilul ii<»t mean to assert the obvi- 
ous uutruth, that ail were then actually enjoyiuj^ that ecjuality, nor 
yet that they were ai>out to confer it imiuetliately upon them. In 
faet, they had no power to confer such a boon. They meant simply 
to deeh'.re the ri<iiit. so that the enforcement of it mi<;ht follow as 
fast as eireunistanees should permit. 

They nuaiit to set up a standard maxim for free society, which 
shoidd Ite familiar to all, and revered by all; constantly looked to ; 
constantly labon-d for ; and even though never perfectly attained, 
constiintiy approximated ; and thereby constantly spreading and 
deepening its inthn'iice and augmenting the happiness and value 
of life to all people of all colore everywhere. The assertion that 
'•all men :!re creat«'d e(puil,'" was of no practical u.se in elfecting 
our separation from (Jreat liritain; and it was placed in the Declara- 
tion, not for that but f<jr future use. Its authors meant it to be as, 
thank CumI. it is now proving itself, a stumbling-block to all those 
who, in after-times, might seek to turn a free people back into the 
hateful paths of despotism. They knew the proneness of prosperity 
to hniMl tyrants, and they meant when such should reappear in this 
fair land and commence their vocation, they should find left for 
thiin at least one hard n\it to crack. 

I have now brielly expressed my view of the meaning and <jl)ject 
of that i>art of the Declaration of Independence which declares that 
'•all men are created e(iual." 

Now lit us bear Judge Douglas's view of the same subject, as I 
find it in the printed report of his late speech. Here it is: — 

"No man can viiKlicatc t)»e chnractor, motives, .•iiid conduct of the 
sijjiH'rs of the Drclaralioii of IiuU-pcudence, e.xcepl upon tlie hyi>othosis 
tliat Iht'V refi-rri'd to tlie while race alone, and not to the African, when 
tliey (leclare«l all men to have been created equal — that they were speaking 
of Itrilish subjects on this continent l>«'in^'e(|ual to Hritisli subjects born and 
residing in (Jreat Kritain — tliat tliey were enlitlfd to the .same inali<iiabli' 
right.H, and «m<in>j Ihfm wi-re enumeratrd life, liberty, and the pursuit of 
ha|»|iin<'.ss. Tlw Deehiration was adopte<l for the pur|M>st> of justifyintr tin- 
rnlunists in the eyes of the oivili/.ed world in withdrawing their alleirianci- 
from the IJritisli CHiwn and dissoh in;,' llicir eunneetion with tlie nu>tlier 
country." 

My go<Ml friendK, read that carefully over some leisure hour, and 
|>onder wi^ll U|M»n it — see what a mere wreck — mangled ruin, it 
makes of our once glorious Declaration. 

" They wen- speaking of Hritish subjects on this continent be- 
ing etpia I to British subjects borii and residing in Great Britain ! '' 



SPRINGFIELD, ILL., JUNE 26, 1857. 49 

Why, according to this, not only negroes, but white people outside 
of Great Britain and America were not spoken of in that instru- 
ment. The English, Irish, and Scotch, along with white Americans, 
were included to be sure, but the French, Germans, and other white 
people of the world are all gone to plot along with the Judge's in- 
ferior races. 

I had thought the Declaration promised something better than 
the condition of British subjects; but no, it only meant that we < 
should be equal to them in their own oppressed and unequal condi- 
tion ! According to that, it gave no promise that, having kicked 
off the king and lords of Great Britain, we should not at once be 
saddled with a king and lords of our own in these United States. 

I had thought the Declaration contemplated the progressive 
improvement in the condition of all men everywhere ; but no, it 
merely "was adopted for the purpose of justif^dng the colonists in 
the ej^es of the civilized world in withdrawing their allegiance from 
the British crown, and dissolving their connection with the mother 
country." Wh}', that object having been effected some eighty years 
ago, the Declaration is of no practical use now — mere rubbish — 
old wadding left to rot on the battle-field after the victory is won. 

I understand you are preparing to celebrate the "Fourth" 
to-morrow week. What for? The doings of that day had no 
reference to the present ; and quite half of you are not even 
descendants of those who were referred to at that day. But I 
suppose 3'ou will celebrate ; and will even go so far as to read the 
Declaration. Suppose, after 30U read it once in the old-fashi<med 
way, you read it once more with Judge Douglas's version. It will 
then run thus: "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all 
British subjects who were on this continent eighty-one years ago, 
were created equal to all British subjects born and then residing in 
Great Britain." 

And now I appeal to all — to Democrats as well as others — are 
you really willing that the Declaration shall thus be frittered away ? 
— thus left no more at most than an interesting memorial of the 
dead past ? — thus shorn of its vitality and practical value, and left 
without the germ or even the suggestion of the individual lights of 
man in it ? 

THE MIXING OF THE KACES. 

But Judge Douglas is especially horrified at the thought of the 
mixing of blood b}' the white and black races. Agreed for once — 
a thousand times agreed. There are white men enough to marry all 
4 



50 SPEECH OF LINCOLN. 

the white women ; ami black uh'JI eiioiijih to marry all tlio lilaok 
women; and so let them l»e mank'«l. On this point, we full}' 
agive with the Judge ; and when he shall show that his poliey is 
lu'tter adapted to prevent amalgamation than ours, we sliall drop 
(»urs and adopt his. Let us see. In 1850, there were in the I'nited 
States, 4(tr».7r»l mulattoes. Very few of these are the otTsjiring of 
whites anil free Llaeks ; nearly all have sprung from I)huk slaves 
and white masters. 

A .scparatifMi of the rices is the only perfect preventive of 
amalgamation ; Itut as an immediate separation is impossible, tlie 
next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already 
together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, 
they will never mix blood in Kansas. That is at least one self- 
evident truth. A few free colored persons may get into the Free 
Suites, in any event ; but their numlter is too insignificant to amount 
to much in the way of niix<Ml l)lo()d. 

In lsr)0, there were in the Free States, 5G,G40 mulattoes ; but 
for the most part they were not born there — they came from the 
Slave States, ready made \i\). In the same year the Slave States had 
348, S74 mulattoes, all of home production. The proportion of free 
mulattoes to free l)lacks — the only colored classes in the Free 
States — is much greater in the Slave than in the Free States. It 
is worthy of note, too, that among the Free States, those who 
make the colored man the nearest ecpml to the white, iiavc pro- 
portionally the fewest mulattoes, the least of amalgamation. In 
New Hampshire, the State which goes farthest towanl etpiality 
between the races, there are just 184 mulattoes, while there are in 
Virginia — how many do you think? — 70,775, being 2.']. 120 more 
than in all the l-'rce States together. 

These statistics show that slavery is the greatest source of amal- 
gamati<Mi, and next to it, not the elevation, but the degradation of 
fre<' blacks. Vet Judge Douglas dreads the slightest restraints on 
the spread of slavery, and the slightest human recognition of tiic 
negro, as tending horribly to amalgamation. 

The very Dre<l Scott ease alFords a strong ti'st as to which party 
njosl favjtrs amalgamation, the He|)ul"licans or the dear " I'nion- 
saving" Denjocracy. Dred Scott, his wifi', and two daughtiM's were 
all involved in the suit. We desired llic court to have held that 
thi'V wen- citizens so far at least as to cut it h- them to a hearing as 
to whether they were free or not ; and then, also, that they were in 
fa<t and in law, really free. Could we have had our way, tlie 



SPRINGFIELD, ILL., JUNE 2(j, 1857. 51 

chances of these bhick girls ever mixing their blood with that of 
Avhite people, wouhl have been diminished at least to the extent 
that it could not have been without their consent. But Judge 
Douglas is delighted to have them decided to be slaves, and not 
human cnoiigii to have a hearing, even if they were free; and thus 
left subject to the forced concubinage of their masters, and lialile 
to become the mother of niulattoes in spite of themselves, — the 
very state of case that produces nine-tenths of all the niulattoes, all 
the mixing of blood in the nation. 

Of course, I state this case as an illustration onh', not meaning 
to say or intimate that the master of Dred Scott and his family, or 
any more than a percentage of masters generally, are inclined to 
exercise this particular power which they hold over their female 
slaves. 

I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect 
preventive of amalgamation. I have no right to say all the mem- 
bers of the Republican party are in favor of this, nor to say that as 
:i party they are in favor of it. There is nothing in their platform 
directly on the subject. But I can say, a very large proportion of 
its members are for it, and that the chief plank in their platform 
— opposition to the spread of slavery — is most favorable to that 
separation. 

Such separation, if ever effected at all, must be effected by 
colonization; and no political party, as such, is now doing any- 
thing direct!}" for colonization. Party operations, at present, only 
favor or retard colonization incidentally. The enterprise is a dilli- 
cult one; but "where there is a will there is a wa}';"' and what 
colonization needs most is a hearty will. Will springs from the two 
elements of moral sense and self-interest. Let us be brought to 
l)elieve it is morally right, and, at the same time, favorable to, or, 
at least, not against, our interest, to transfer the African to his 
native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the 
task may be. The cliildren of Israel, to such numbers as to include 
four hundred thousand fighting men, went out of Egyptian bondage 
in a body. 

How differently the respective courses of the Democratic and 
Bepul^lican parties incidentally bear on the question of forming a 
will — a public sentiment — for colonization is easy to see. The 
Republicans inculcate, with whatever of ability they can, that the 
negro is a man ; that his l)ondage is cruelly wi'ong, and that 
the field of his oppression ought not- to be enlarged. The Demo- 



52 SPEEril OF LINCOLN. 

< rat . (Ii'tiy Lis luanlmotl ; deny, or lUvarf to iiisigiiilifuucf, the wrong 
<»f his iKmdage; so far as possiliU*, (.•rush all sympathy for hiui, and 
fidtivati' and i-xcitt' hatred and disgust against him ; eonipliment 
tlu'insclves as '• rni<>n-savei>i "' for doing so ; and call the indofinite 
outspreading of his l>ondage ''a sacred rigiit of self-government. " 

The i)lainest print cannot he read through a gold eagle ; an 1 
it will ev«T he hanl to lind many men who will send a slave to 
JiilK'ria. and j)ay his passage, while they can send him to a new 
country — Kansas for instance — and sell him for fifteen hundred 
dollars, and the rise. 



THE '-IlOrSE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF" SPEECH, 

Af Springfield, June 16, 1S58. 

[Tho fi)llowin;r speech was delivered at Sprinpfield, 111., at the dose 
of tiio Ut'i)ublican State Convention iield at that time and place, and by 
wliiclj Convention Mr. Lincoln liad been named as thrir candidate for 
Uniti'd Slates Senator. Mr. |)ou<;laswas not present] 

Mk. Prksidk.vt .vni) (Iknti.k.mkn ok tuk Conventio.n' : If we 
could lirst khow where we are, and whither we are tending, we could 
lietter judge what to do, and how to do it. AVe are now far into 
the (ifth year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object 
and confident promise of putting an end to slavery agitation. Un- 
der the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not 
cea.sed, liut has constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not 
cease until ii crisis shall have been reaclnd and passed. " A liou.se 
<Iivided against itself cannot stand. ' I believe this Government 
canufit endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not ex- 
pect the I'nion to be dissolved; 1 do not expi'ct the house to fall; 
but I do expect it will c«'ase to In- tlixidcil. It will liec(»me all one 
thing, or all the other. Kither the t)|»poiu'nts of slavery will arrest 
the further spread of it, and place it where the public miiul shall 
n-Ht in the ln-lief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or 
its advocates will push it forward till it shall becf)me alike lawful iu 
all th<' Stales, ohi as well as new. North as well as South. 

Have we no t«'ndencv to tliw latter condition? 



SPRINGFIELD, it.L., JUNE Ki, 1858. 53 

Let any one who doubts, carefully contemphite that now almost 
complete legal combination — piece of machinery, so to speak — 
compounded of the Nebraska doctrine and the Dred Scott decision. 
Let him consider, not only what work the machinery is adapted to 
do, and how w-ell adapted, but also let him study the history of its 
construction, and trace if he can, or rather fail, if he can, to trace, 
the evidences of design, and concei't of action, among its chief 
architects, from the beginning. 

The new year of 1854 found slavery excluded from more than 
half the States by State Constitutions, and from most of the Na- 
tional territory by Congressional prohiljition. Four (Uu's later, 
commenced the struggle which ended in repealing that Congressional 
prohibition. This opened all the National territory to slaver}', and 
was the first point gained. 

But, so far, Congress onJij had acted; and an indorsement by 
the people, real or apparent, was indispensable, to save the point 
already gained, and give chance for more. 

This necessity had not been overlooked, but had been provided 
for, as well as might be, in the notable argument of "squatter 
sovereignty," otherwise called "sacred right of self-government," 
which latter phrase, though expressive of the only rightful basis of 
any government, was so perverted in this attempted use of it as to 
amount to just this: That if any (me man choose to, enslave another, 
no third man shall be allowed to oI)ject. That argument was incor- 
porated into the Nebraska bill itself, in the language which follows: 

"It being the true intent and meaning of this Act not to legislate 
slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to 
leave the people thereof perfectl}' free to form and regulate their domestic 
institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the 
United States." 

Then opened the roar of loose declamation in favor of "squat- 
ter sovereignty," and "sacred right of self-government." " But," 
said opposition members, "let us amend the bill so as to ex- 
pressly declare that the people of the Territory may exclude slav- 
ery. " "Not we," said the friends of the measure ; and down they 
voted the amendment. 

While the Nebraska bill was passing through Congress, a law 
case, involving the question of a negro's freedom, by reason of his 
owner having voluntarily taken him first into a Free State, and then 
into a Territory covered by the Congressional prohibition, and held 



:,4 SPEK( H OF LINCOLN. 

him as a slaxc for a lon^i liiiif in racli, was passing through the 
I iiitc'il Stall's Ciivuit Court for \\n' District of Missouri; and both 
Ni'ltraska hill and hiwsuit w»mv Imnight to a decision in the same 
moMlli of May, isr)4. The negros name was " Dred Seott," which 
name now designates the decision liiially made in the case. liefore 
the llien next Presidential eU'ction, tlie law case came to, and was 
argued in, the Supremo Court of the Cnited States; but the decision 
of it was deferred until after the eU'clion. Still, before the election. 
Senator Trumbull, on the lloor of the Senate, re(|Uested the leading 
advocate of the Neliraska liill to state A/.v oy<////<(// whether the peo- 
ple of a Territory c.ui coiisiitulionally exv-hule slavery from their 
limits: and th" lattc:- answers: "That is a ([Uestion for the Supreme 
Court.' 

The cleclioii iMiiie. Mr. Ibicli:inan was elected, and tiie indorse- 
ment, such as it was, secunij. 'rii:it was the second i)oiut gained. 
The indorsement, however, fell short of a clear popular majority by 
nearly four hundred thousand votes, and so, perhaps, was not over- 
whelmingly reliable and satisfactory. The outgoing President, in 
his last annual mi-ssage, as impressively as possible echoed back 
upon the people tiie weight and authority of the indorsement. The 
Supreme C«>urt met again, did not announce tlnir decision. Imt 
ordered a re-argument. The Presidential inauguration came, and 
still no decision of the Court ; l>ut the incoming Pri'sident, in his 
inaugural address, fervently exhorted thi' pcopli' to abide l)y the 
forthcoming decision, whatever it might l»e. Then, in a few days, 
came the decision. 

The n-puted author of the Nebrask:i bill linds an early occasion 
to make a speech at this capital indorsing the Dred Scott decision, 
and vehemently denouiK'ing all opposition to it. The new President, 
t«Mt, si'izes the early occasion of the Sillim:in letter to indorse and 
strongly construe that (U'cision, and to express his astonishment 
tliat any dilFerent view had ev»'r been entertainedl 

At length a srpiabble springs up between the President ami the 
author of the Nebri'.ska bill, on tlie mere (piestion of /'.xV, whether 
the Lecompton Constitution was or was not in any just sense made 
by the people of Kansas; and in that tpiarrtl the latter declares 
that all her wants is a fair vote for the peoplr. and that he cares not 
whether slaverv b<i voted limni or voted iiji. I do not understand 
liiH declaration, that he carcH not whether slavery be voted down or 
voted up, to Ik.' intended liy him other than as un apt delinition of the 
|)oliev he would impress upon the public mind, - the principle for 



SPRINGFIELD, ILL., JUNE 16, 1858. 55 

which he declares he luis suffered so much, and is ready to suffer 
to the end. And well may he cling to that pruiciple ! If he has 
any parental feeling, well may he cling to it. Tliat principle is the 
only shred left of his original Nebraska doctrine. Under the Dred 
Scott decision "squatter sovereignty" squatted out of existence, 
tumbled down like temporary scaffolding; like the mold at the 
foundr}-, served through one blast, and fell back into loose sand; 
helped to carry an election, and then was kicked to the winds. 
His late joint struggle with the Republicans, against the Lecompton 
Constitution, involves nothing of the original Nel)raska doctrine. 
That struggle was made on a point — the right of a people to make 
their own constitution — upon which he and the l\('i)ublicans have 
never differed. 

The several points of the Dred Scott decision, in connection 
with Senator Douglas's "care not" policy, constitute the piece of 
machinery, in its present state of advancement. This was the third 
point gained. The working points of that machinery are: — 

First, That no negro slave, imported as such from Africa, and 
no descendant of such slave, can ever be a citizen of any State, in 
the sense of that term as used in the Constitution of the United 
States. This point is made in order to deprive the negro, in every 
possible event, of the benefit of that provision of the United States 
Constitution which declares that ' ' The citizens of each State shall 
be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the 
several States." 

Secondl}', That, ' ' subject to the Constitution of the United 
States," neither Congress nor a Territorial Legislature can exclude 
slavery from any United States Territory. This point is made in 
order that individual men may fill up the Territories with slaves, 
without danger of losing them as property, and thus enhance the 
chances of permanency to the institution through all the future. 

Thirdly, That whether the holding a negro in actual slavery in 
a free State, makes him free, as against the holder, the United 
States courts will not decide, but will leave to be decided by the 
courts of an}' Slave State the negro may be forced into by the 
master. This point is made, not to be pressed immediately; but, 
if acquiesced in for awhile, and apparently indorsed by the people 
at an election, then to sustain the logical conclusion that what Dred 
Scott's master might lawfully do with Dred Scott in the Free State 
of Illinois, every other master may lawfully do with any other one, 
or one thousand slaves, in Illinois, or in any other Free State. 



50 SPEECH OF LINCOLN. 

Auxiliurv to all this, and workin;:; hand in hand ^vith it, 
the Ni'hra.sUa lUn-trint', or what is left of it, is to educate and 
mould publie opinion, at least Northern public opinion, not to care 
whether slavery is voted down or voted up. This shows exactly 
when' we ni»w are; and partially, also, whitlier we are tendin>r. 

It will throw atlditional lijilit on the latter, to go back and run the 
mind over the string of historical facts already stated. Several things 
will now appear less chirk au'l mysterious than they did when they were 
transpiring. Tiie people were to l)e left "perfectly free,' ''subject 
only to the Constitution." What the Constitution had to do with 
it, outsiilers could not then see. Plainly enough now, it was an 
exactly fitted niche, for the Died Scott decision to afterward come 
in, and declare the perfect freedom of the people to be just no 
freedom at all. Why was the amendment, expressly declaring the 
right of the people, voted down ? Plainly enough now, — the 
adoption of it would have spoiled the niche for the Dred Scott de- 
cision. Why was the court decision held up? Why even a Sen- 
ators individual opinion withheld, till after the Presidential elec- 
tion ? IMainly enough now : the speaking out then would have 
damaged the '-perfectly free '" argument upon which the election was 
to be carried. Why the outgoing Presidents felicitation on tlic 
indorsement ? Why the delay of a re-argument ? Why the in- 
coming President's advance exhortation in favor of the decision ? 
The.se things look like the cautious patting and petting of a si)irited 
horse preparatory to mounting him, when it is tlreadetl that he may 
give the rider a fall. And why the hasty after-indorsement of the 
deci.>^ion by the Prcsiilent and others? 

We cannot absolutely know that all these exact adajjtations are 
the result of preconcert. But when we see a lot of framed timbers, 
different portions of which w«' know have been gotten out at diHercnt 
limes and places and l)y ditfcrcnt workmen, — Stephen, Franklin, 
Roger, and James, for instance, — and when we see these timbers 
joineil together, and see they exactly make the frame of a house or a 
mill, all the tenons and mortices exactly fitting, and all the lengths 
and proportions of the dilfcrent pieces exactly adapted to their re- 
Bpective places, and not a piece too many or too few, — not omitting 
even aculfolding, — or. if a single piece be lacking, we sec the 
place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared yet to bring such 
piece in, — in such a case, we liiiil it imp<»ssible not to bi-lievc that 
Stephen and Franklin and iloger ami James all nndcr.stood one an- 
other from tin- beginning, and all worki'd upon a common plan or 
draft drawn un iMfon- the lirst blow was struck. 



SPRINGFIELD, ILL., JUNE 10, 18.J8. 57 

<'WITY MENTION A STATE? ' 

It should not be overlooked that l)y the Nelmiska bill the people 
of a State as well as Territory were to be left •• perfectly free," 
•'subject ouh' to tlie Constitution." Why mention a State ? They 
were legislating for Territories, and not for or about States. Cer- 
tainly the people of a State are and ought to bo subject to the Con- 
stitution of the United States; but whj' is mention of this lugged 
into this merely Territorial law? Why are the people of a Territory 
and the people of a State therein lumped together, and their rela- 
tion to the Constitution therein treated as being precisely the same? 
While the opinion of the Court, by Chief Justice Taney, in the 
Dred Scott case, and the separate opinions of all concurring 
Judges, expressly declare that the Constitution of the United 
States neither permits Congress nor a Territorial Legislature to 
exclude slavery from any United States Territory, they all omit 
to declare whether or not the same Constitution permits a State, or 
the people of a State, to exclude it. Possibly, this is a mere omis- 
sion; but who can be quite sure, if McLean or Curtis had sought to 
get into the opinion a declaration of unlimited power in the people 
of a State to exclude slavery from their limits, just as Chase and 
Mace sought to get such declaration, in behalf of the people of a 
Territory, into the Nebraska bill, — I ask, who can be quite sure 
that it w^ould not have been voted down in one case as it had been 
in the other? 

The nearest approach to the point of declaring the power of a 
State over slavery, is made by Judge Nelson. He approaches it 
more than once, using the precise idea, and almost the language, 
too, of the Nebraska Act. On one occasion, his exact language is, 
' ' Except in cases where the power is restrained by the Constitution 
of the United States, the law of the State is supreme over the sub- 
ject of slavery within its jurisdiction." In what cases the power of 
the States is so restrained by the United States Constitution, is left 
an open question, precisely as the same question, as to the restraint 
on the power of the Territories, was left open in the Nebraska Act. 
Put this and that together, and we have another nice little niche, 
which we may, ere long, see filled with another Supreme Court decision, 
declaring that the Constitution of the United States does not permit 
a State to exclude slavery from its limits. And this may especially 
be expected if the doctrine of ' ' care not whether slavery be voted 
down or voted up " shall gain upon the public mind sufficiently to 
give promise that such a decision can be maintained when made. 



58 SPEECH or LINCOLN. 

Sufli :i (Kcision is all that slavery now lacks of i)ein<j; alike law- 
ful in all tlu' Slatos. Wckoiiu' or un\VL'k-oiu»', such decision is prob- 
rtlily couiin<i. and will soon lio n\nn\ us, unless the power (»1" the 
present political dynasty shall Itc nicl and overthrown. We shall 
lie down pleasantly dreaiuinj; that the people of Missouri are on the 
verjre of uiakinj; their Slate free, an<l we shall awake to the reality 
instead that the Supreme Court has made Illinois a Slave Stale. To 
meet and overthrow the power of that dyntisty is the work now he- 
fore all those who wouhl prevent that eonsuuiuialiou. That is what 
we have to tlo. How can we best do it ? 

There are those who denounce us openly to Iheir own friends. 
and yi-t whisper us softly that Senator Douglas is the aplest instru- 
ment there is willi which to cH'ect that object. They wish us to iii/rr 
all. from the fact that he now has a little quarrel v.ith the present 
1m :nl of the dynasty, and that he has regularly voted wilii us on a 
single poiiit. upon which he and we have never ditlered. They re- 
mind us that he is a great man. and that the largest of us are very 
small ones. Let this be granted. But "a living dog is better than 
a dead lion." Judge Douglas, if not a dead lion, for this work is at 
least a caged and toothless one. How can he oppo.se the advances 
of slavery V He dont care anything about it. His avowed mission 
is impressing the '' public heart " to cniT itotlting dhont if. A lead- 
ing Douglas Democratic newspaper thinks Douglas's superior talent 
will be necdi'd to resist the revival of the African slave trade. Does 
Douglas believe an elFort to revive that trade is approaching? He 
has not said so. D<k's he really think so ? But if it is, bow can he 
resist it ? lM»r years he has laltored to prove it a sacred right of 
while men t<} take negro slaves into the new Territories. Can he 
I>ossibly sh<»w that it is less a sacred right to buy tliem where they 
can be l»ought cheapest ? And unquestionably they can i»e bought 
cheap<*r in Africa than in A'irginia. He luis done all in hi.s power 
to reduce the wh(»Ie (piestion of slavery to one of a mere riglit of 
property; and. as such, how can heoppo.se the foreign slave trade? 
H<»w can he refuse that trade in that " properly "' shall be "per- 
fectly free," uidess he docs it as a |)rotection to the home produc- 
tion ? And as the home producers will probably not ask llu' jirolci'- 
tion. Ih* will be wholly witli<»ul a ground of opposition. 

Si'uator Doiigl.Ms h<»lds, we know, that a man may rightfidly be 
wiser today ihan In* w.as yesterday; that he may rightfully change 
when he finds iiiniself wrong. But can we. for Ihat rea.soii. run 
aiiead, and infer that he will make any parlieidar change, of wiiich 



SPRINGFIELD, ILL., JUNE 16, 1858. 59 

he himself has given no inlimation ? Can we safely base our action 
upon any such vague inference ? Now, as ever, T wish not to mis- 
represent Judge Douglass position, question his motives, or do 
aught that can be personally offensive to him. Whenever, if ever, 
he and we can come together on principle, so that our great cause 
may have assistance from his great ability, I hope to have interposed 
no adventitious obstacle. But clearly he is not now with us; he 
does not pretend to be, — he does not promise ever to be. 

Our cause, then, must be intrusted to, and conducted by, its own 
undoubted friends, — those whose hands are free, whose hearts are 
in the work, who ao care for the result. Two years ago the Repub- 
licans of the nation mustered over thirteen hundred thousand strong. 
We did this under the single impulse of resistance to a common 
danger, with every external circumstance against us. Of strange, 
discordant, and even hostile elements w«e gathered from the four 
winds, and formed and fought the battle through, under the con- 
stant hot fire of a disciplined, proud, and pampered enem}'. Did 
we brave all then, to falter now, — now, when that same enemy is 
wavering, dissevered, and belligerent ? The result is not doubtful. 
We shall not fail — if we stand firm, we sh<dl not fail. Wise coun- 
sels may accelerate, or mistakes delay it ; but, sooner or later, the 
victory is sure to come 



SI'KKCII OF SKNA'l'oi: I )()rGLAS, 

(hi t/it (hr.im'iin nf hin I'uhlir Jtirr/ifiun tit Clnrmjo, Friilaif Kccuiiiij, July 'J, 
Is.'iS. {Mr. I.iiii-olii iniK jiriKitit.) 

Mr. Douglas said, — ■ 

Mr. CiiAiK.MAN .\.M) FKi.i.dW-CiTi/KNS: 1 call liiitl iio language 
which can atlciiuatcly fxpix'ss my i)n»f(niiul gratitude lor the mag- 
iiiliccMit Wflcoiiic which you have extended to me on this occasion. 
'I'liis vast sea t»f human faces indicates how deej) an interest is felt 
l»y our people in the great (juestions which agitate the public mind, 
and which underlie the foundations of our free institutions. A re- 
ception like this, so greatin numbers that no human voice can he 
heard to its countless thousands — so enthusiastic that no one indi- 
vidual can be the object of such enthusiasm, — clearly shows that 
there is some great principle which sinks deep in the heart of the 
masses, and involves the rights and the liberties of ii whole people, 
that has brought you togetlier with a unaniiuity and a conliality 
never before excelled, if, iii(U'ed, eciuallnl on any occasion. I have 
not the vanity to believe that it is any personal compliment to me. 

It is an expression of jour devotion to that great principle of 
self-government, to which my life for many years past has been, and 
in the future will be, devoted. If there is any one principle dearer 
and more sacred tiiaii all others in free governments, it is that which 
asserts the exclusive right of a free people to form and adopt their 
own fundamental law, and to manage anil regulate their own inter- 
nal atfairs and domestic institutions. 

TIIK LKCO-MI'TON coNSTITrTIo.N. 

\\'lnii 1 found an etlorl lieiiig made during the recent session 
of Ciiiigiess to fon-e a constitution upon the people of Kansas 
against their will, and to force that Slate into the I'nion with a consti- 
tution which her people had rejected l»y more than ten thousand, 1 lelt 
lM»und as a man of honor and a representative of Illinois, bouml by 
every consideration of tluty, of fidelity, and of patriotism, to resist 
to the utmost of my power the consummation of that fraud. With 
others, I did i;esisl it, and resisted it successfully until the attempt 
was abandoned. We forced them to n-fer that constitution back to 
the people of Kansas, to lie accepted or rejected as they shall de- 



CHICAGO, ILL., JULY !), IS.IS. 61 

cidc ut an election which is fixed I'or the first IMondu}- in August 
next. It is true that the mode of reference, and the form of the 
submission, was not such as I could sanction with my vote, for the 
reason that it discriminated between Free States and Slave States ; 
providing that if Kansas consented to come in under the Lecompton 
Constitulion it should be received with a population of tiiirty-five 
thousand; but that if she demanded another constitution, more con- 
sistent with the sentiments of her people and their feelings, that it 
should not be received into the Union until she has 93,420 inhab- 
itants. I did not consider that mode of submission fair, for the 
reason that any election is a mockery which is not free ; that any 
election is a fraud upon the rights of the people which holds out in- 
ducements for affirmative votes, and threatens penalties for negative 
votes. But whilst I was not satisfied with the mode of submission, 
whilst I resisted it to the last, demanding a fair, a just, a free mode 
of submission, still, when the law passed placing it within the jjower 
of the people of Kansas at that election to reject the Lecompton 
Constitution, and then make another in harmony with their prin- 
ciples and their opinions, I did not believe that either the penalties 
on the one hand, or the inducements on the other, would force that 
people to accept a constitution to which they are irreconcilably op- 
posed. All I can say is, that if their votes can be controlled by 
such considerations, all the sympathy which has been expended 
upon them has been misplaced, and all the efl'orts that have been 
made in defense of their right to self-government have been made 
in an unworthy cause. 

Hence, my friends, I regard the Lecompton battle as having 
been fought, and the victory won, because the arrogant demand for 
the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton Constitution uncon- 
ditionally, whether her people wanted it or not, has been abandoned, 
and the principle which recognizes the right of the people to decide 
for themselves has been submitted in its place. 

Fellow-citizens, while I devoted my best energies — all my en- 
ergies, mental and physical — to the vindication of the great prin- 
ciple, and whilst the result has been such as will enable the people 
of Kansas to come into the Union with such a constitution as they 
desire, yet the credit of this great moral victory is to be divided 
amons: a large number of men of various and different political 
creeds. I was rejoiced when I found in this great contest the Re- 
publican party coming up manfully and sustaining the principle 
that the people of each Territory, when coming into the Union, 



62 SPEECH t>l" DolCLAS. 

Ii:iv»' tin- lijilil to (U'c'iiU' for llicmsi'lves whethiT slavi-rv sluill or 
8halt not exist within their limits. I \\:i\v seen tlie tinje wIkm that 
prineiple was eontroverted. I have si-t-n tlie time when all parlies 
did nc»t reeosziiize the ri^ht of a pfo[tlf to have slavery or freedom, 
to tolerate «>r prohihit slavery as they deiin hest, hut elaimed that 
power ft»r the Conj^ress of the United States, re<>;ardless of the 
wishes of the people to be affeeted by it ; and when I found upon 
the Crittfudcn-Moiitiiomery bill the Republicans and Americans of 
the North, anil 1 may say, too, some glorious Amerieans and Old- 
line Wliijjs from the South, like Crittenden and his patriotic associ- 
ates, join«Ml with a i)ortion of the Democracy to carry out and 
vindicate the rii^ht of the people to decide whether slavery should 
or should not exist within the limits of Kansas — I was rejoiced 
within my secret soul, for I saw an indication that the American 
people, when they come to understand the principle, would give it 
their cordial support. 

The Crittenden-Montgomery Itill was as fair and as perfect an 
exposition of the doctrine of popular sovereignty as could be carried 
out by any bill that man ever <levised. It proi)osed to refer the 
Lecompion Constitution \rM-k to the people of Kansas, and give 
thcni the riiilit to accept or I'cjcct it as tlicy plcascil. ut a fair elec- 
tion, held in pursuance of law, and in the event of their rejecting it, 
and forming another in its stead, to permit them to come into the 
I'nion on an equal footing with the original States. It was fair and 
just in all of its provisi()!is. I g.-ive it my cordial support, and was 
rejoiced wiien I f<»und that it ])asse<l the House of Representa- 
tives. an«l at one time I entertained high hope that it would pass 

til.- <<'!i-iti- 

DOICL.VSS "<iKKAT I'ltl NCHM.K. "' 

1 regard the great ))rinciple of popular .sovereignty as having 
Iteen vindicated and made triumphant in this land as a j)ermanent 
rule of public policy in the organization of Territories and the 
admission of new States. HIinois took her position upon this 
prineiple many years ago. Yon all recollect that in 1S.')(>, aft -r 
the passage of the Compromise measures of that ye:ir, when I 
retunn-d to my home there was great dissalisfacti(»n expressed at 
iny course in supporting tlui.se measures. I appi'ared l)ef«M"e the 
|M'opIe of Chicago at a mass meeting, and vindicated each antl 
every one of tlio.si- measures ; and by n-fereiice to my speech on 
that occnsion, which was printol and cireul:ited Itroadcast through- 
out tin* Stat«' at the time. Vou will find that I then ami there s.aid 



CHICAGO, ILI.., .ITLY !), 1858. 63 

thut those measures were till foiuKled upon the great principle that 
every people ought to possess the right to form and regulate their 
own (loiuestic institutions in their own way, and that that right 
being possessed liy the people of the States, I saw no reason why 
the same principle should not be extended to all of tlie Territories 
of the United States. A general election was held in this State a 
few mouths afterward, for members of the Legislature, pending 
which all these questions were thoroughly canvassed and discussed, 
and the nominees of the different parties instructed in regard to the 
wishes of their constituents upon them. Wiien that election was 
over, and the Legislature assembled, they proceeded to consider the 
merits of those Compromise measures, and the principles upon 
which the}' were predicated. And what was the result of their 
action ? They passed resolutions, first repealing the Wilmot Proviso 
instructions, and in lieu thereof adopted another resolution, in 
which they declared the great principle which asserts the right of 
the people to make their own form of government and establish 
their own institutions. That resolution is as follows : — 

"■Re^wked, Tliat our librrty and independence are based upon the right 
of the people to iorm lor tliemselves such a government as they maj' 
ehoose; that this great i)rinciple, the birthright of freemen, tlie gift of 
ll.',;\en secured fo us by the blood of our ancestors, ought to be secured 
to future generations, and no limitation ought to be applied to this power 
in the organization of any Territory of the United States, of either Ter- 
ritorial Government or State Constitution, ])rovided the Government so 
established shall be Republican, and in conformity with the Constitution 
of the United States." 

That resolution, declaring the great principle of self-government 
as applicable to the Territories and new States, passed the House of 
Representatives of this State by a vote of sixty-one in the affirma- 
tive, to only four in the negative. Thus you find that an expres- 
sion of public opinion — enlightened, educated, intelligent public* 
opinion — on this question by the Representatives of Illinois in 1851 
approaches nearer to unanimity than has ever been obtained on an}' 
controverted question. That resolution was entered on the journal 
of the Legislature of the State of Illinois, and it has remained there 
from that day to this, a standing instruction to her Senators, and a 
request to her Representatives in Congress, to carr}^ out that prin- 
ciple in all future cases. Illinois, therefore, stands pre-eminent as 
the State which stepped forward early and established a platform 
applicable to this slavery question, concurred in alike by Whigs and 



04 SPEECH <>1' l)t»r(iLAS. 

PtMUOcrats. in which il was ilcrhin'(l to hi- tht- wish of our p('oi)k' 
that thiTfaflt-r Ihr |)t'oj)k* of the Tcrritorit's should hi- k*ft perfeclly 
frt'i* to form ami rt'j^uhitc tht'ir tloiui'stic institutions in tht'ir own 
way. and that no limitation should be placed upon that right in 
any form. 

lii-nei'. what was my duly in IS.')!, wlicn it became necessary to 
bring forward a bill for tlie organisation of the Territories of Kansas 
and Nebraska? Was it not my duty, in obedience to the Illinois 
platform, to your standing instructions to your senators, adopted 
with almost entire unanimity, to incorporate in that bill the great 
principle of self-government, declaring that it was "the true intent 
and meaning of the Act not to legislate slavery into an}' State or 
Territory, or to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof 
perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in 
their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United 
States'"? I did incorporate that principle in the Kansas-Xebraska 
Itill, and perhaps I did as much as any living man in the enactment 
of that bill, thus establishing the doctrine in the public policy of 
the country. 1 then defended that princii)le against the assaults of 
one section of the Union. During, this last winter it became my 
duty to vindicate it against assaults from the other section of the 
Fnion. I vindicated it boldly and fearlessly, as the people of Chi- 
cago can bear witness, when it was assailed l)y Frce-soilers ; and 
during this winter I vindicated and defended it as boldly and fear- 
lessly when it was attempted to be violated by tiic almost united 
South. I pledged myself to you on every stunii» in Illinois in 1S54, 
1 ph*dg«'(l myself to the jjcople of other States. North and South, 
wherever I sj)oke ; anil in the United States Senate and elsewhere, 
in every form in which 1 coiiM reacii tiii- pultlic mind or the public 
i-ar, 1 gave the pledge that 1. so far as the power should be in my 
hands, wouhl vindicate the principle of the right of the pet>p!e to 
f«)rm their own institutions, to establish Free States or Slave States 
as they ch(»se, and that that principle should never be violated 
either by frauil, by violence, by lircumvention, or by any other 
means, if it was in my power to prevent it. I now submit to you, 
my fellow-citi/.cns, whether 1 have not redeemed that pledge in 
gcK)d faith. Yes, my friends. 1 iiave redeemed it in good faith ; 
and it Ih a matter of heart-felt gratilication to me to see these as- 
wmbled thousands here t«)-night hearing their testimony to tlu'liilel- 
ity with which I have advocated thai priniij)!*'. and redeemed my 
pledges in coniiecti(Mi with it. 



CHICAGO. ILL.. JULY 9, ISoS. 65 

T will l»e entirely frank with you. My object was to secure the 
right of the people of each State and of each Territory, North or 
South, to decide the question for themselves, to have slavery or not^ 
just as they chose ; and my opposition to the Lecompton Constitu- 
tion was not predicated upon the ground that it was a pro-slavery 
constitution, nor would my action have been different had it been a 
Free-soil constitution. My speech against the Lecompton fraud was 
made on the 9th of December, while the vote on the slavery clause 
in that constitution was not taken until the 21st of the same month, 
nearly two weeks after. I made my speech against the Lecompton 
monstrosity solely on the ground that it was a violation of the fun- 
damental principles of free government ; on the ground that it was 
not the act and deed of the people of Kansas ; that it did not em- 
body their will ; that they were averse to it ; and hence, I deny the 
right of Congress to force it upon them, either as a Free State or a 
Slave State. I deny the right of Congress to force a slave-holding 
State upon an unwilling people. I deny their right to force a Free 
State upon an unwilling people. I deny their right to force a good 
thing upon a people who are unwilling to receive it. 

The great principle is the right of every community to judge and 
decide for itself whether a thing is right or wrong, whether it would 
be good or evil for them to adopt it ; and the right of free action, 
the right of free thought, the right of free judgment, upon the ques- 
tion is dearer to every true American than any other under a free 
government. My objection to the Lecompton contrivance was that 
it undertook to put a constitution on the people of Kansas against 
their own will, in opposition to their wishes, and thus violated the 
principle upon which all our institutions rest. It is no answer to 
this argument to say that slavery is an evil, and hence should not 
be tolerated. Yon must allow the people to decide for themselves 
whether it is a good or an evil. You allow them to decide for them- 
selves whether they desire a Maine liquor law or not ; you allow 
them to decide for themselves what kind of common schools they 
will have, what S3'stem of banking they will adopt, or whether they 
will adopt any at all ; you allow them to decide for themselves 
the relations between husband and wife, parent and child, guardian 
and ward, — in fact, you allow them to decide for themselves all 
other questions ; and why not upon this question ? Wheirever you 
put a limitation upon the right of any people to decide what laws 
they want, you have destroyed the fundamental principle of self- 
government. 



(56 SPEECH OF I H)r(; LAS, 

In c-oiiiH-rtiun with this siiltjfct. i)i'rh:ip.s it will not lie iiniinipiT 
for wt' on this occasion to alhulc to the position of those who liave 
chosen to arniijin my condnct on this same siil)ject. 1 liave ol)- 
served from tlie piililic prints tliat ImiI a few days a«!;o the Hepultli- 
can partvof the State of Illinois assenil)led in convi-ntion at Siiiinji- 
lieM, and not only hiid down their platform, but nominated a candi- 
ihite fitr the United States Senate, as my successor. I take great 
pleasure in sayin*; that I have known, personally and intimately, for 
altout a (piarter of a century, the worthy gentleman who lias tieeu 
nominateil for my placi-, and I will .say that 1 rej^ard him as a kind, 
amiable, and intelligent <;entlenian, a gootl cili/en and an honorable 
op|M)nent ; and whatever issue 1 may have with him will lie of prin- 
ciple, and not involving personalities. Mr. Lincoln made a speech 
before that Republican Convention which unanimously nominated 
him for the Senate, — a speech evidently well prepared and carefully 
written, — in which he states the basis upon which he proposes to 
carry on the campaign during this summer. In it he lays down two 
distinct i)ropositions which 1 shall notice, and upon which 1 shall 
take a direct and bold issue with him. 

His first and main proposition 1 will give in his own language, 
seripture (piotations and all 1 laughterj ; I give his exact language : 
'•'A liouse ilivided against itself cannot stand.' 1 believe this 
Government cannot endure, permanently, half shar and hi\\[/r<r. I 
do not expect the Union to be ilissohcd ; I do not expect the house 
to full: but I do expect it to cease to be divided. It will liecome 
iitt one thing, or nil the other." 

In othi-r words, Mr. Lincoln asserts, as a fundamental prini-iple 
of this (iovernmeut, that there must be uniformity in the local laws 
und domestic institutions of each and all the States of the Union ; 
and lie therefore invites all the noii-slaveho.ding Slates to band to- 
gether, organize as one body, and make war upon slavery in Ken- 
tucky, upon slavery in N'lrginia, upon the Carolinas, upon slavery in 
all of the slave-liolding .States in this Union, and to persevere in 
that war until it shall be exterminated. He tlu n notilies the slave- 
lioMing Stales to stand together as a unit, and make an aggressive 
war uiM)n the Kree Stales of this Union with a view of establishing 
Hlavery in them all ; of forcing it upon Illinois, of forcing it upon 
New V«irk, upon New lOngland. and upon every other Fre«' Slate, and 
that lliey sh.ill keep up the warfare until it has been formally es- 
Uiblished in them all In other words, .Mr. Lincoln advocates boldly 
und eluarly a war of sections, a war of the North against the South, 



CHICAGO, IIJ.., JULY !), 1858. 67 

of the Free States against the Slave States, — a war of extermina- 
tion,— to be continued relentlessly until the one or the other shall l)e 
subdued, and all Ihe States shall either become Free, or become 
Slave. 

Now, my friends, I must say to you frankly that I take bold, 
unqualified issue with him upon that principle. I assert that it is 
neither desirable nor possible that there should be uniformity in the 
local institutions and domestic regulations of the dift'erent States of 
this Union. The framers of our Government never contemplated 
uniformity in its internal concerns. The fathers of the Revolution 
and the sages who made the Constitution Vv-cU understood that the 
laws and domestic institutions which would suit the granite hills of 
New Hampshire woidd be totally unfit for the rice plantations of 
South Carolina; they well understood that the laws which would suit 
the agricultural districts of Pennsylvania and New York would be 
totally unfit for the large mining regions of the Pacific, or the lum- 
ber regions of Maine. They well understood that the great varieties 
of soil, of production, and of interests in a Republic as large as this, 
re([uired dillereut local and domestic regulations in each locality, 
adapted to the wants and interests of eacii separate State, and for 
that reason it was provided in the Federal Constitution that the thir- 
teen original States should remain sovereign and supreme within 
their own limits in regard to all that was local and internal and do- 
mestic, while the Federal Government should have certain specified 
powers which were general and national, and could be exercised only 
by Federal authority. 

The framers of the Constitution well understood that each lo- 
cality, having separate and distinct interests, required separate and 
distinct laws, domestic institutions, and police regulations adapted 
to its own wants and its own condition; and thej' acted on the pre- 
sumption, also, that these laws and institutions would be as diversi- 
fied and as dissimilar as the States would be numerous, and that no 
two would be precisely alike, because the interests of no two would 
I )e precisely the same. Hence I assert that the great fundamental 
principle which underlies our complex system of State and Federal 
Governments contemplated diversity and dissimil^ai'ity in the local 
institutions and domestic affairs of each and everj- State then "iii the 
Union, or thereafter to be admitted into the Confederacy. / 1 there- 
fore conceive that my friend Mr. Lincoln has totall}- misapprehended 
the great principles upon which our Government rests. Uniformity 
in local and domestic affairs would be destructive of State rights, of 



(18 SPKEt'II OF IX He J LAS. 

SUitc soverei»inty, of pi-rsiuial lil>erty ami imtsoiuU fit'cdom. Fni- 
foriuity is tlu' part'iil uf despotism the world over, not only in poli- 
ties. I)nt in relijiion. Wherever the doetrine of uniformity is pro- 
elainu'tl. that all the States must be free or all slave, thai all labor 
must l)ewliite or all blaek, that all the citizens of the different States 
must have the same privileges or be governed by the same regula- 
tions, you have destroyed the greatest safeguard which our institu- 
tions have thrown around the rights of the citizen. 

How couUl this uniformity be accomplished, if it was desirable 
and possible ? There is but one mode in which it could be obtained, 
and that must be by abolishing the State Legislatures, blotting out 
State sovereignty, merging the rights and sovereignty of the States 
in one consolidated empire, and vesting Congress with the plenary 
power to make all the police regulations, domestic and local laws, 
uniform throughout the limits of tin- liepublic. When you shall have 
done this, you will have uniformity. Then the States will all be Slave 
or all be Free; then negroes willvote everywhere or nowhere; then you 
will have a Maine liquor law in every State or none; then you will 
have uniformity in all things, local or domestic, by the authority of 
the Federal (Jovernment. Hut when you attain that uniformity, j-ou 
will have converted these tiiirty two sovereign, uidependent States 
into one consolidated empire, with the uniformity of disposition 
reigning triumphant throughout the length and Invadth of the 
loud. 

From this view of the case, my friends, I am driven irresistibly 
to tiie conclusion that diversity, tlissimilarily, variety, in all our 
local and «lomestic institutions is the great safeguard of our liberties, 
and that the framers of our mstitutions were wise, sagacious, and 
patriotic when they made this Government a confederation of sover- 
eign States, with a legislature for each, and conferreil upon each 
iegislatiin' the power to make all local and domestic institutions to 
suit the people ii represented, without interference from any other 
State or from the general Congress of the Fnion. If we expect to 
muintani our liberties, we must preserve the rights and sovereignty 
of the Sl.iles; we must maintain and vmvv out that great principle 
of Helf-governnn'nt iucorporati-d in the Coinpromise measures of 
iwr>l), ind<jrsed by the lllin«)is liCgislature in ls.")l, emidiatically em- 
bodied an<l carried out in the Kansas-Neitraska bill, and vindicated 
thin year by the refusal tr) bring Kansas into the rnlon with :i con- 
Ktitution distuHt4.'ful to her people. 



CHICAGO, ILL , JULY 9, 1858. 69 



THE ST'PRE^rE COURT. 



The other proposition discusst'd l)y Mr. Lincoln in his speech 
consists in a crusade against the Supreme Court of the United States 
on account of the Dred Scott decision. On this question also I de- 
sire to say to you unequivocally, that I take direct and distinct issue 
with him. I have no warfan; to make on tlie Supreme Court of the 
United States, either on account of that or any other decision which 
they have pronounced from that bench. The Constitution of the 
United States has provided that the powers of government (and the 
Constitution of each State has the same provision) shall be divided 
into thuee departments, — executive, legislative, and judicial. The 
right and the province of expounding the Constitution and construing 
the law is vested in the judiciary established by the Constitution. 
As a lawyer, I feel at liberty to appear before the court and contro- 
vert any principle of law while the question is pending before the 
tribunal; but when the decision is made, my private opinion, your 
opinion, all other opinions, must yield to the majesty of that au- 
thoritative adjudication. I wish you to bear in mind that this in- 
volves a great principle, upon which our rights, our liberty, and our 
property all depend. What security have you for your property, 
for your reputation, and for your personal rights, if the courts are 
noj; upheld, and their decisions respected when once fairly rendered 
by the highest tribunal known to the Constitution ? I do not choose, 
therefore, to go into any argument with Mr. Lincoln in reviewing 
the various decisions which the Supreme Court has made, either 
upon the Dred Scott case or any other. I have no idea of appealing 
from the decision of the Supreme Court upon a constitutional ques- 
tion to the decisions of a tumultuous town meeting. I am aware 
that once an eminent lawyer of this city, now no more, said that the 
State of Illinois had the most perfect judicial sj'stem in the world, 
subject to but one exception, which could be cured by a slight 
amendment, and that amendment was to so change the laws as to 
allow an appeal from the decisions of the Supreme Court of Illinois, 
on all constitutional questions, to justices of the peace. 

My friend Mr. Lincoln, who sits behind me, reminds me that 
that proposition was made when I was judge of the Supreme Court. 
Be that as it may, I do not think that fact adds any greater weight 
or authority to the suggestion. It matters not with me who was on 
the bench, whether Mr. Lincoln or myself, whether a Lockwood or 



70 SPEECH OF DOUGLAS. 

a Smith. :» Taney or :i Marshall; the decision of the highest tribunal 
known to the Constitution of the country must be final till ii has 
been reversed by an equally high authority. Hence, I am opposed 
to this doctrine of Mr. Lincoln, by which he proposes to take an 
appeal from the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, 
upon this high constitutional question, to a Republican caucus sitting 
in the country. Yes, or any other caucus or town meeting, whether 
it be Republican. American, or Democratic. I respect the decisions 
of that august tribuiial ; I shall always bow in deference to them. 
I am a law-abiding man. I will sustain the Constitution of my 
country as our fathers have made it. I will yii'M ohidieiice to the 
laws, whi'thi'r 1 lil-u- tlinn or not. as I liiul tlR-ui on (he statute book. 
I will su.stain the judieial triluinals ami eonstitiiti-d authorities in all 
matters within the pale of their jiirisdioticjn as delined Iiy the Con- 
stitution. 

But I am equally free to sa}- that the reason assigned b}' Mr. 
Lineoln for resisting the decision of the Supreme Court in the Dred 
Seott case does not in itself meet my approbation. He objects to 
it beeause that decision deelared that a negro descended from Afri- 
can parents who were brought here and sold as slaves is not, and 
cannot be, a citizen of the United States. He says it is wrong, be- 
eause it deprives the negro ot the benefits of that clause of the Con- 
stitution which says that citizens of one State shall enjoy all the 
privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States; in other 
words, he thinks it wrong because it deprives the negro of the i)rivi- 
leges. immunities, and rights of citizenship, which pertain, accord- 
ing to that decision, only to the white man. I am free to sa}' to 
you that in my opinion this (fovernment of ours is foun<led on the 
wliite basis. It was made l)y the white man, for the benefit of the 
white man, to be administere<l l)y white men. in such maniu-r .is 
they should determine. It is also true that a negro, an Indian, or 
any other man of inferior nice to a white man should lie perniilted 
to enjoy, and humanity re(|uires that he shoidd have, all the rights, 
privilegi's, anil imnunnlies which he is capalile of exercising con- 
Kistont with the safely of society. I would give him every light 
and every pri\ ilege whii-li his ca|)acity would enable him to enj«>v, 
coiiHihtent with the good of the society in which he liveil. But you 
may ask me. What an* these rights an<I these privileges? .My 
answer is, That each State must decide for itself the nature and 
extent of tlie.se rigiits. Illinois has decided for herself. We have 
decided that the negrf) shall not Itj- a slave, ami we have at the same 



CHICAGO, ILL., JULY 9, 1858. 71 

time decided that be shall not vote, or serve on juries, or enjoy 
political privileges. I am content with that system of policy which 
we have adopted for ourselves. I deny the right of any other State 
to complain of our policy in that respect, or to interfere with it, or 
to attempt to change it. On the other hand, the State of Maine 
has decided that in that State a negro man may vote on an equality 
with the white man. The sovereign power of Maine has the riglit 
to prescribe that rule for herself. Illinois has no right to complain 
of Maine for conferring the right of negro suffrage, nor has Maine 
any right to interfere with or complain of Illinois because she has 
denied negro suffrage. 

The State of New York has decided by her Constitution that a 
negro may vote, provided that he own $250 worth of property, but 
not otherwise. The rich negro can vote, but the poor one cannot. 
Although that distinction does not commend itself to my judgment, 
yet I assert that the sovereign power of New York had a right to 
prescribe that form of the elective franchise. Kentucky, Virginia, 
and other States have provided that negroes, or a certain class of 
them in those States, shall be slaves, having neither civil nor politi- 
cal rights. Without indorsing the wisdom of that decision, I assert 
that Virginia has the same power, by virtue of her sovereignty to 
protect slavery within her limits, as Illinois has to banish it forever 
from our own borders. I assert the right of each State to decide 
for itself on all these questions, and I do not subscribe to the doc- 
trine of my friend Mr. Lincoln, that uniformity is either desirable 
or possible. I do not acknowledge that the State must all be Free 
or must all be Slave. 

I do not acknowledge that the negro must have civil and politi- 
cal rights everywhere or nowhere. I do not acknowledge that the 
Chinese must have the same rights in California that we would con- 
fer upon him here. I do not acknowledge that the coolie imported 
into this country must necessarily be put upon an equality with the 
white race. I do not acknowledge any of these doctrines of uni- 
formity in the local and domestic regulations in the different States. 

Thus you see, my fellow-citizens, that the issues between Mr. 
Lincoln and myself, as respective candidates for the United States 
Senate, as made up, are direct, unequivocal, and irreconcilable. 
He goes for uniformity in our domestic institutions, for a war of 
sections, until one or the other shall be subdued. I go for the great 
principle of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, — the right of the people to 
decide for themselves. 



72 SPEECH or Dol'C.LAi^. 

On till' oiluT i)oint, Mr. Liiunlii gofs for :i warfare upon the 
Suprt'UU' Court of the I iutt'<l States because of their judicial decision 
in" the Dred Scott case. 1 yield obedience to the decisions in that 
fonrt, — to the linal determination of the highest judicial tribunal 
known to our Constitution. He objects to the Dred Scott decision 
because it does not put the negro in the possession of the rights of 
citizenship t»n an e(|uality with the white man. 1 am opposed to 
negix) eipiality. I n-peat tiiat this nation is a wiiite people, — a 
people compo.sed of European descendants; a people that have estab- 
lished this Government for themselves and their posterity, — and I 
am in favor of preserving, not only the purity of the blood, but the 
purity of the tJovernmeut, from any mixture or amalgamation with 
inferior races. I have seen the effects of this mixture of superior 
and inferior races, — this amalgamation of white men and Indians 
and negroes; we liave seen it in Mexico, in Central America, in 
South America, and in all the Spanish- American States; and its 
result has been degeneration, demoralization, and degradation be- 
low the capacity' for self-government. 

I am opposed to taking an}' stej) that recognizes the negro man 
(jr the Indian as the ecjual of the white num. I am opposed to giv- 
ing him a voice in the administration of the Government. 1 would 
extend to the negro and the Indian and to all dependent races 
every right, every privilege, and every immunity consistent with 
the safety and welfare of the white races; but ecjuality they never 
should have, either j)oIitical or social, or in any other respect what- 
ever. 

My friends, you see that the issues are distinctly drawn. I 
stand by the same platform that I have so often proclaimed to you 
and to the i>eopIe of Illinois heretofore. I stand by the Democratic 
organization, yield obeilience to its usages, and support its regular 
nominations. I in<l()rse and ai)prove the Cinciiinali platform, and 
I adhere to and intend to carry out, as part of that platform, the 
great principle <»f Kelf-goveniment, which reeognizes the right of the 
jMMiple in each State and Territory to decide for themselves their 
domestic institutions. In other words, if the Lecompton issue shall 
arise again, you have only to turn back and see where you have 
found me during the last six months, and then rest assured that 
you will find me in the same jxisilion, battling for the same |)rinciple, 
and vindie;iting it from assault from whateviT ijuarter it may come, 
HO long us 1 have the iwwer to do it. 



CHICAGO, ILL., JULY {), 1858. 73 

THE "ALLIED ARMY." 

Fellow-citizens, you now htive before you the outlines of the 
proposilicjns whicli I intend to discuss before the people of Illinois 
during the pending campaign. I have .spoken without preparation 
and in a very desultory manner, and may have omitted some points 
which I desired to discuss, and ma}^ have been less explicit on others 
than I could have wished. I have made up my mind to appeal to 
the people against the combination which has been made against 
me. The llepublican leaders have formed an alliance — an unholy, 
unnatural alliance — with a portion of the unscrupulous Federal 
othce-holders. I intend to fight that allied army wherever T meet 
them. I know they deny the alliance, while avoiding the common 
purpose; but yet these men,- who are trying to divide the Democratic 
party for the purpose of electing a Republican Senator in my place, 
are just as -much the agents, the tools, the supporters of Mr. Lin^ 
coin as if they were avowed Republicans, and expect their reward 
for their services when the Republicans come into power. I shall 
deal with these allied forces just as the Russians dealt with the 
Allies at Sebastopol. The Russians, when they fired a broadside at 
the common enemy, did not stop to inquire whether it hit a French- 
man, an Englishman, or a Turk, nor will I stop, nor shall I stop, to 
inquire whether my blows hit the Republican leaders or their allies, 
who are holding the Federal offices, and 3'et acting in concert with the 
Republicans to defeat the Democratic party and its nominees. I do not 
include all of the Federal office-holders in this remark. Such of them 
as are Democrats and show their Democracy by remaining inside of 
the Democratic organization and supporting its nominees, I recognize 
as Democrats; but those who, having been defeated inside of the 
organization, go outside and attempt to divide and destroy the 
party in concert with the Republican leaders, have ceased to be 
Democrats, and belong to the allied army, whose avowed oljject is 
to elect the Republican ticket by dividing and destroying the 
Democratic part3^ 

My friends, I have exhausted myself and I certainly have fatigued 
you, in the long and desultory remarks which I have made. It is 
now two nights since I have been in bed, and I think I have a right 
to a little sleep. I will, however, have an opportunity of meeting 
you face to face, and addressing you on more than one occasion 
before the November election. In conclusion, I must again say to 



7 1 SPEECH oK I.lNCuLN. 

vou. justice to my owu feelin<;s ilomuiuls it, that my <;r:ititutk' for tlie 
\veli«»mi'you have extended to me on this occasion knows no bounds, 
anil ean lie (U'scriheil Ijy n<» hmjinaj^e which I can command. I see 
that I am literally at home when amon^ my constituents. Thiswel- 
cumi' has amply re|):n(l luc for every effort that 1 havi- made in the 
public service «lurin<j the twenty-five years tliat I have held ollice 
at your hands. It not only compensates me lor the past, l)ut it 
furnishes an inducement and incentive for future elfort which no 
man. no matter how patriotic, can feci wlio lias not witnessed the 
maguiliceut reception you have extended me to-night on my return. 



SPEECH OF HON. ABRAHAM LINCOLN, 

IN REPLY TO SEN.VTOR DOUGLAS. 

Delirered at C/iicayo, Saturday Erening, July 10, 1S5S. ( .)//•. Douglas teas 

not prevent.) 

(Mr. Lincoln was introduced by C. L. Wilson, Esq.; and as he made 
his appfiirauco he was jErreeted with a [RTfect storm of applause. For 
some moments the enthusiasm coiitinui'cl unabated. At last when by a 
wavf of tin- hand partial sih-nco was restored. Mr. Lincoln said : —J 

Mv Fellow-Citizens : On yesterday evening, upon the occasion 
of the reception tjiven to Senator Douj^las, I was furnished with a 
seat very convenient f<jr hearin>; him, and was otherwise very cour- 
teously treated by him and by his friends, and for which I thank 
him and then«. nurinji the course of his remarks my name was 
mentioned in such a way as, 1 suppo.se, renders it at least not im- 
proper that I shoidd make some sort of a reply to him. 1 shall not 
attempt l<< follow him in the pn-cise order in which he addressed the 
tt.sMembl«'<l niullitudi- upon th;\t occasion, though I shall perhaps do 
so in the main. 

There was one (piestion to which \\v askt-d the attention of the 
crowd. whi<-h I deem of Honuwhat less importance — at least of 
propriety for me to dwell nj)on — than the others, which he brought 
in near the close of his speech, and which I think it would not be 
entirely proper foi' nic to omit attending to. and yet if I witc not to 



CHICAGO, ILL., .JULY 10, IS.IS. 75 

give some attention to it now, I should probably forget it alto- 
gether. While I am upon this subject, allow me to say that I do 
not intend to indulge in that inconvenient mode sometimes adopted 
in public speaking, of reading from documents; but I shall depart 
from that rule so far as to read a little scrap from his speech, which 
notices this first topic of which I shall speak, — that is, provided I 
can find it in the paper. 

" I have made up my mind to appeal to the people aj^ainst the combina- 
tion that has been made against me; the Ilepublican leaders having 
formed an alliance — an unholy and unnatural alliance — with a portion 
of unscrupulous Federal office-holders. 1 intend to fight that allied army 
wlierever I meet them. I know they deny the alliance; but yet these m(Mi 
who are trying to divide the Democratic party for the purpose of electing 
a Republican Senator in my place are just as much the agents and tools 
of the supporters of Mr. Lincoln. Hence I shall deal with this allied 
army just as the Russians dealt with the Allies at Sebastopol, — that is, 
the Russians did not stop to inquire, when they fired a broadside, whether 
it hit an Englishman, a Frenchman, or a Turk. Nor will I stop to in- 
quire, nor shall I hesitate, whether my blows shall hit the Republican 
leaders or their allies, who are holding the Federal offices, and yet acting 
in concert with them." 

Well, now, gentlemen, is not that very alarming? Just to think 
of it! right at the outset of his canvass T, a poor, " kind, amiable, 
intelligent gentleman," — I am to be slain in this way ! Why, my 
friends, the Judge is not only, as it turns out, not a dead lion, nor 
even a living one, — he is the rugged Russian Bear ! [Laughter 
and applause.] 

But if they will have it — for he saj's that we deny it — that 
there is any such alliance, as he says there is, — and I don't propose 
hanging very much upon this question of veracity, — but if he will 
have it that there is such an alliance, — that the Administration 
men and we are allied, and we stand in the attitude of Knglisli, 
French, and Turk, he occupying the position of tlie Russian, in tliat 
case I beg that he will indulge us while we barely suggest to him 
that these allies took Sebastopol. [Great applause.] 

G-entlemen, only a few more vrords as to this alliance. For my 
part, I have to say that whether there be such an alliance depends, 
so far as I know, upon what may be a right definition of the term 
"alliance." If for the Republican party to see the other great 
party to which they are opposed, divided among themselves, and not 
try to stop the division, and rather be glad of it, — if that is an 
alliance; I confess I am in; but if it is meant to be said that the 



70 SPKKCll OF I.INCOLN. 

Rrpublioans had roiim-d :m nlliaiiii' ^<>inj^ lit'yontl lli:il, l>y wiruli 
tliiTt* is coulrilttition <»f iiioncy or sntTiik-e of i)riiiciple on the oiu' 
side or tlu' otlu-r, so far as the U('i)iil)li('aii parly is concerned, — if 
then* be any such thinji, i protest that I ndthfT know anythint^ of 
it. nor d») I hciieve it. 1 w*dl, however, say, as I think tiiis itrancli 
of the ar<.;iiinent is lut!;<jed in, I would liefore I U'ave it, slati-, for 
ll'e JH'Melit of tliose concerned, that one of tliose same Buchanan 
men did «>nee tell nie of an ar<xiMnent that he niadi' for his opposi- 
tion to .)udj;e ])ouglas. He said that a friend of our Senator 
Doujzlas had been talking to him, and had, among other things, said 
to him: ••Why. you do jil w;int to beat Douglas?" "Yes." 
saiil he, •* I do want to beat hini. and 1 will tell you why. 1 
believe his original Nebraska bill was right in the al)stract, but it 
was wrong in the time that it was brought forwanl. It was wrong 
in the application to a Territory in regard to which the question had 
been settled; it was brought forward at a time Avhi-n nobody asked 
him; it was tendered to the South when the South had not asked 
for it, l»ut when they could not well refuse it; and for this same 
reason he forced that question upon our i)arty. It lias sunk the 
best men all over the nation, everywhere; and now, when our 
President, struggling wilii the dilliculties of this man's getting up, 
has reaelu'il the very hardest point to turn in the case, he deserts 
him and I am for putting him where he will trouble us no more.'' 

Now, gentlemen, that is not my argument; that is not uiy argu- 
ment at all. I liave only Ik-cu stating to you the argument of a 
Jiuchanan man. Vou will judge if there is any force in it. 

•■ Wll.VT l.S I'OIMJL.MI SOVKllKIONTY ? ■' 

•• popular Sovereignty I " everlasting •• Popular Sovereignty ! " Let 
us a moment inciuire into this vast matter of Popular Sovereignty. 
What is Popidar Sovereignty ? We recollect that at an early period 
in the history of this struggle there was :inother name for the same 
tiling. "Sipiatler Sovereignty." It was not i-xactly Popular 
Sovereignty, Imt Squatter Sovt-n-ignty. AVhal do those terms mean? 
What <lo thos«* terms niean when us«'(l now? And vast cre(lit is 
tak«n by <»ur friend the Judge in rcgar<l to his supjtorl of it, when 
hi* declares the last years of his life have been, and all the future 
years of his life shall bi*, devoti-d to this matter of Popidar 
.Sovereignty. What is it? Why, it is the sovereignty of the people! 
What was S(jnutt«'r Sovereignty? I suppose if it had any signili- 
eanee ut all. il was the right of the people to govern themselves, 



CHI('A(i(), ILL., .iriA' 10, 1858. 77 

to be sovei'eigii in llii-ir own affairs while they wcn-e squatted chnvn 
in a country not their own, while they had squatted on a Territory 
that did not belong to them, in the sense that a State belongs to 
the people who inhabit it, — when it belonged to the nation; sudh 
right to govern themselves was called " Squatter Sovereignty." 

Now, I wish you to mark. AVhat has become of that Squatter 
Sovereignty? "Wiint has ])ecome of it? Can you get anybody to 
tell 3'ou now that the people of a Territory have an}' authority to 
govern themselves, in regard to this mooted question of slavery, 
before they form a State Constitution? No such thing at all, 
although there is a general running fire, and although there has 
been a hurrah made in every speech on that side, assuming that 
policy had given the people of a Territory the right to govern them- 
selves upon this question; yet the point is dodged. To-day it has 
been decided — no more than a j^ear ago it was decided b}' the 
Supreme Court of the United States, and is insisted upon to-day — 
that the people of a Territory have no right to exclude slavery from 
a Territory; that if an}' one man chooses to take slaves into a Terri- 
tory, all the rest of the people have no right to keep them out. This 
being so, and this decision being made one of the points that the 
Judge approved, and one in the approval of which he says he means 
to keep me down, — put me down I should not say, for 1 have never 
been up. He says he is in favor of it, and sticks to it, and expects 
to win his battle on that decision, which says that there is no 
such thing as Squatter Sovereignty, but that any one man may take 
slaves into a Territory, and all the other men in the Territory may 
])e opposed to it, and yet by reason of the Constitution they cannot 
prohibit it. AVlien that is so, how much is left of this vast matter 
of Squatter Sovereignty, I should like to know? [A voice: " It is 
all gone. "] 

When we got back, we get to the point of the right of the peo- 
ple to make a Constitution. Kansas was settled, for example, in 
1854. It was a Territory yet, without having formed a constitu- 
ti(m, in a very regular way, for three years. All this time negro 
slavery could be taken in by any few individuals, and by that 
decision of the Supreme Court, which the Judge api)roves, all the 
rest of the people cannot keep it out; l)ut when they come to make 
a constitution, they may say they will not have slavery. But it is 
there; they are obliged to tolerate it some way, and all experience 
shows it, will 1).' so, for they will not take the negro slaves and 
absolutely de^jrive U\c owners of them. All experience shows this 



7s SPEECH <>1' LINCOLN, 

to be 80. All that space' of liiiie thai runs fmiu the beginning of 
the settlement of llie Territory until there is sullicieuey of people to 
make n State constitntion, — -all that portion of time Popular 
Sovereignty is given up. The seal is abolutely put down upon it 
liy th' eourt derision, and .Judge Douglas puts his own upon the 
top of that; yet he is appealing to the people to give him vast 
credit for his devotion to Popular Sovereignty. [Applause.] 

Again, when we get to the question of the right of the people to 
form a State Constitution as they please, to form it with slavery or 
without slavery, — if that is anything new, I confess I do nt know 
it. Has there ever been a time when anybody said that any other 
than the people of a Territory itself should form a constitution? 
What is now in it that Judge Douglas should have fought several 
years of his life, and pledge himself to fight all the remaining years 
of bis life, for? Can Judge Douglas find anybody on earth that 
said that anyijodyel.se should form a constitution for a jjcople? [A 
voice, ''Yes. "1 Well, I should like you to name him; 1 should 
like to know who lie was. [Same voice, "John Calhoun. ""] 

Mr. Lincoln. — Xo, sir, I never heard of even John Calhoun say- 
ing such a thing. He insisted on the same principle as Jutlge 
Douglas, but his mode of ai)plying it, in fact, was wrong. It is 
enough for my purpose to ask this crowd whenever a Republican 
said anything against it. They never said anything against it, l)ut 
they have constantly ^l)oken for it; and whoever will undertake to 
examine the platform, and the speeches of responsible men of the 
party, and of irresponsible men, too, if you please, will be unable 
to find one word from anybody in the Kepublican ranks opposed to 
that Popular Sovereignty which .Iudg«' Douglas thinks that he has 
invented. I suppo.se that Judge Douglas will claiiu. in a little 
while, that he is llu* invt-ntor of the idea that the |)cople should 
govern themsidves; that nobody ever thought of such a thing until 
he brought it forward ! 

We do not remember that in that old Declaration of Independence 
it is said that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all 
men are created ei|Ual; that they are endowed liy their Creator with 
lerlain inalienable rights; that amcmg the.se are lif<'. liberty, and the 
pursuit of happiness; tliat to secure these rights, governments are 
instituti'd among men, deriving their jnsf p<iw<Ts from the con.sent 
of the governed." There is the <trigin of I'opular Sovereignty, 
i lioud a|tplause. I ^^'lM^ then, shall conic in at this day and claim 
that he invent<xl it ? 



CHICAGO, ILL., JULY 10, 1858. 70 

THE ]>ECOMPT()N CONSTITUTION. 

The Locompton Coustitutioii connects itself Avitli this question, 
tor it is in this matter of the Lecompton Constitution that our friend 
Judge Douglas claims such vast credit. I agree that in opi)osing 
the Lecompton Constitution, so far as I can perceive, he was right. 
I do not deny that at all; and, gentlemen, you will readily see why 
I could not deny it, even if I wanted to. But I do not wish to; for 
all the Repuijiicans in the nation opposed it, and they would have 
opposed it just as much without Judge Douglas's aid as with it. 
They had all taken ground against it long before he did. Why, the 
reason that he urges against that Constitution, I urged against him 
a year before. I have the printed speech in my hand. The argu- 
ment that he makes, why that Constitution should not be adopted, 
that the people were not fairly represented nor allowed to vote, I 
pointed out in a speech a 3ear ago, which I hold in my hand now, 
that no fair chance w^as to be given to the people. ["Read it. 
Read it."] I shall not waste 3'our time by trying to read it. 
[''Read it. Read it."] Gentlemen, reading from speeches is a very 
tedious business, particularly for an old man that has to put on 
spectacles, and more so if the man be so tall that he has to bend 
over to the light. 

A little more, now, as to this matter of Popular Sovereignty and 
the Lecompton Constitution. The Lecompton Constitution, as the 
Judge tells us, was defeated. The defeat of it was a good thing, or 
it was not. He thinks the defeat of it was a good thing, and so do 
I, and we agree in that. Who defeated it ? 

..4 Voice. — Judge Douglas. 

Mr. Lincoln. — Yes, he furnished himself, and if you suppose he 
controlled the other Democrats that went with him, he furnished 
three votes; while the Republicans furnished tw<ntij. 

That is what he did to defeat it. In the House of Representa- 
tives he and his friends furnished some twenty votes, and the Re- 
publicans furnished ninety odd. Now who v.as it that did the work? 

A Voice. — Douglas. 

Mr. Lincoln. — Wh}-, yes, Douglas did it ! To be sure he did. 

Let us, however, put that proposition another way. The Re^)ub- 
licans could not have done it without Judge Douglas. Could he 
have done it without them ? Which could have come the nearest to 
doing it without the other ? 

-4 T o(ce.— Who killed the bill? 



so SPEECH tH' MNCOLN. 

A lint fir r Voice. — Douglas. 

Mr. Liiunlii. — Ground was taken ajjainst it by the Rppuhlioans 
loni; lu'fori' l>ouglas did it. Tlio jji-oportiici «)f opposition to that 
lui'asure is aiiout livt- to oni'. 

A Voice. — Why dont they coiue «jut on it V 

.}fr. Liiici'tii. — You don't know what you are tidkin^ al)out, my 
friiMnl. I am (piite willing; to answer any gentleman in the crowd 
who asks an int'l/iifnt (piestion. 

Now, who in all this e«)untry has ever found any oi' our friends 
of Judge Douglas's way of tlunking, autl who have acted upon this 
main (juestion, that has ever thought of uttering a word in hehalf of 
Judge Truml)ull ? 

.1 Voice. — We have. 

JAr. Lincoln. — I defy you to show a {printed resolution passed in 
a Democratic meeting — I take it upon myself to defy any man to 
show a printed resolution of a Democratic meeting, large or small 
— in favor of Judge Trumbull, or any of the five to one Republicans 
who beat that bill. Everything must be for the Democrats ! They 
did everything, and the live to the one that really did the thing, 
they snub over; and they do not seem to rememl)er that they have 
an exisU'nce upon the face of the earth. 

rrentlemen, I fear that I shall become tedious. I leave this 
branch of the suliject to take hold of another.' I take up ihat part 
of Jud.;e Douglas's speech in which he respectfully attended to me. 

THE IS.SUKS OF THE C.VMPAKJN. 

Judge Douglas made two points upon my recent speech at 
Springlkld. lie says they are to be the issues of this campaign. 
The lirst one of these points he l>ases upon the language in a speech 
which I delivereil at Springfield, which 1 believe lean (juote correctly 
from memory. I said tluri' that 'Mve are now far into the fifth year 
since a policy was instituted for the avowetl object, and witlj the 
confident promise, of putting an end to slavery agiUition; under the 
oiKjration of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but 
lias constantly augnu'iitcd." " I believe it will not cease until a cri- 
sis shall have been reached and passed. ' A house divided against 
itscdf cannot stand.' I believe this Government cannot endure per- 
manently of half Slave and half Free. " "I do iu)t expect the Tnion 
to be dissolved," - I am (putting from my speech, - "I do not ex- 
pect the house t«» fall, but 1 do expect it will cea.se to be divided. 
Il will become ail on<' thing or all the other. Kither tli(> opponents 



CHICAGO, IJ>L., .ITLY 10, 1858. 81 

of slavery will arrest the further spread of it and phice it where the 
public uiiud shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ulti- 
mate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward until it shall 
become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new, Xortli as 
well as South.'" 

That is the paragrapli. In this paragraph, which I have 
(juotcd in 3-our hearing, and to which I ask the attention of all, 
Judge Douglas thinks he discovers great political heres}-. I want 
your attention particularly to what he has inferred from it. He 
says I am in favor of making all the States of this Union uniform 
ni all their internal regulations; that in all their domestic concei'ns 
I am in favor of making them entirely uniform. He draws this in- 
ference from the language I have quoted to you. He says that I 
am in fa'\'or of making war by the North upon the South for the 
extinction of slavery; that I am also in favor of inviting (as he 
expresses it) the South to a war upon the North for the purpose of 
nationalizing slavery. Now, it is singular enough, if you will care- 
fully read that passage over, that I did not say that I was in favor 
of anything in it. I only said what I expected would take place. 
I made a prediction only, — it may have been a foolish one, perhaps. 
I did not even say that I desired that slavery shouM be put in course 
of ultimate extinction. I do say so now, however, so there need be 
no longer any difficulty about that. It may be written down in the 
great speech. 

Grentlemen, Judge Douglas informed you that this speech of 
mine was probably carefull}^ prepared. I admit that it was. I am 
not master of language; I have not a fine education; I am not cap- 
able of entering into a disquisition upon dialectics, as I believe you 
call it; but I do not believe the language I emploj'ed bears any such 
construction as Judge Douglas puts upon it. But I do n't care 
about a quibble in regard to words. I know what I meant, and I 
will not leave this crowd in doubt, if I can explain it to them, what 
I really meant in the use of that paragraph. 

I am not, in the first place, unaware that this Government has 
endured eighty-two years half Slave and half Free. I know that. I 
am tolerabl}' well acquainted with the history of the countiy, and 
1 know that it has endured eighty-two years half Slave and half 
Free. 1 believe — and that is what I meant to allude to there — I believe 
it has endured, because during all that time, until the introduction of 
the Nebraska bill, the public mind did rest all the time in the belief 
that slavery was in course of ultimate extinction. That was what 
6 



S2 ^I'KK.t H OF I.IXCDLN, 

jxavi' us till* rt'sl thai \vi' luul llirou<j;li thai pL-riud ui L'i<;;hty-l\vo 
years, — at least, so I lidu'vi'. 1 have always hated slavery, I think, 
as imicit as any Aholitionisi,— I have been an Old Ijine Whiy;, — 1 
have always hated it ; l»nt I have always been (juiet alnHit it until 
this new era uf the intpxhictioii of the Nebraska bill began. I 
always bt lieved that everybody was against it, and that it was in 
course of ultimate extinction. [Pointing to Mr. drowning, wiio 
stood near by. J IJrowning thought so; the great mass of tlie 
nati«)n have restetl in tlie belief that slavery was in course of ulti 
mate extinction. They h;id reason so to believe. 

The adoption of the Conslitulion and its attendant history led the 
people to believe so ; and that such was the belief of the franiers of 
the Constitution itself. Why did those old men, about the time of 
the atloption of the Constitution, decree that slavery should not go 
into the new Ti-rrilory, where it had not already gone ? Why de- 
clare that within twenty years the African slave trade, l)y which 
shives are supplied, might be cut oil' by Congress ? Why were all 
these acts ? 1 might enumerate more of these acts; but enough. 
What were they but a clear indication that the framers of the Con- 
stitution intended and expected the ultimate extinction of that insti- 
tution ? And now, when I say, as I said in my speech, that Judge 
Douglas has quoted from — when I say that I think the opponents 
of slavery will lesist the farther spread of it, and place it where the 
public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in course of ultimate 
extinction, I only mean ti) say tliat tliey will place it where the 
founders of this Government originally placed it. 

TIIK KKiirr OF SKI.F-<!oVKIl\,MKNT. 

I have said a hundred times, and I have now no inclination to 
take it back, that I believe there is no rigid, and ougiit to be no in- 
clination, in the people of the Free States to enter into the Slave 
States, and interfere wilh the (jueslion of shnery at all. I have 
said that always ; Judge Douglas has heard me say it. if not (piite a 
hundred times, at least as good as a hundred times ; and when it is 
»aid that I am in favor of interfering with slavery where it exists, 1 
know it is unwarranted by anything I have ever intmiln/, and. as 
1 iu'lieve, by anything I have ever avkW. If, i)V any means, I have 
ever used language which could fairly be so construed (as, however, 
I iMdievc I never h:ive). I now correct it. 

So much, then, for tlu' inference that .hulgc l)oiiglas draws, that 
I am in favor of setting the sections at war wilh otic another. 1 



CHICAGO, ILL., .JULV 10, 1858. S3 

know lliat I never meant any such thing, and I believe that no fair 
mind can infer any such thing from anything I have ever said. 

Now, in relation to his inference that I am in favor of a general 
consolidation of all the local institutions of the various States. I 
will attend to that for a little while, and try to inquire, if I can, 
how on earth it could be that any man could draw such an inference 
from anything I said. I have said, very many times, in Judge 
Douglas's hearing, that no man believed more than I in the principle 
of self-goveniment ; that it lies at the bottom of all my ideas of 
just government, from beginning to end. I have denied that his 
use of that term applies properly. But for the thing itself, I deny 
that any man has ever gone ahead of me in his devotion to the prin- 
ciple, whatever he may have done in efficiency in advocating it. I 
think that I have said it in j'our hearing, that I believe each individ- 
ual is naturally entitled to do as he pleases with himself and the 
fruit of his labor, so far as it in no wise interferes with any other 
man's rights ; that each community, as a State, has a right to do 
exactly as it pleases with all the concerns within that State that in- 
terfere with the right of no other State ; and that the General Gov- 
ernment, upon principle, has no right to interfere with anj'thing 
other than that general class of things that does concern the whole. 
I h?ve said that at all times. I have said, as illustrations, that I 
do not believe in the right of Illinois to interfere with the cranberry 
laws of Indiana, the oyster laws of Virginia, or the liquor laws of 
Maine. I have said these things over and over again, and I repeat 
them here as my sentiments. 

How is it, then, that Judge Douglas infers, because I hope to 
see slavery put where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it 
is in the course of ultimate extinction, that I am in faAor of Illinois 
going over and interfering with the cranberry laws of Indiana ? 
What can authorize him to draw any such inference ? I suppose 
there might be one thing that at least enabled him to draw such an 
inference that would not be true with me or many others, that is, 
because he looks upon all this matter of slavery as an exceedingly 
little thing, — this matter of keeping one-sixth of the population of 
the whole nation in a state of oppression and tyranny unequalled in 
the world. He looks upon it as being an exceedingly little thing, — 
onl}' equal to the question of the cranberry laws of Indiana ; as 
something having no moral question in it ; as something on a par 
with the question of whether a man shall pasture his land with cattle, 
or plant it with tobacco ; so little and so small a thing that he con- 



84 SPEKCII OF LINCOFA'. 

cliuk's, if I could iK'sire tluil if an\ tliiii<r slioulil la- done to lirinji; 
about the ultimate extinction of that little thing, I must he in favor 
of l>rin«;in«r ahout an amalgamation of all the other little things in 
the I'nion. 

Now, it so hajipens — anil there. I presume, is the foundation of 
this mistake— that the Judge thinks thus ; and it so happens that 
there is a vast portion of the American people that do not look upon 
that matter as being this very little thing. Thev look upon it as a 
vast moral evil ; they can prove it as such by the writings i»f those 
who gave us the blessings of liberty which we enjoy, and that they 
so looked upon it, and not as an evil merely conlining itself to tlie 
States where it is situated ; and while we agree that, by the Consti- 
tution we assented to, in the States where it exists, we have no 
right to interfere with it, because it is in the Constitution ; and we 
are by both duty and inclination to stick by that Constitution, in 
all its letter and spirit, from beginning to end. 

So much, tlien, as to my disposition — my wish — to have all the 
State Legislatures blotted out, and to have one consolidated Govern- 
ment, and a uniformity of domestic regulations in all the States, — 
by which I suppose it is meant, if we raise corn here, we must make 
sugar-cane grow here too ; and wc must make those things wliich 
grow North grow in the South. All this I suppose he understands 
I am in favor of doing. Now, so much for all this nonsense ; for I 
must call it so. The Judge can have no issue with me on a rpies- 
tion of establishing uniformity in the domestic regulations of the 
States. 

THE DRED SCOTT DECISION. 

A little now on the other jjoint. — the Dred Scott decision. An- 
other of the issues he says that is to Ik' made with me is upon liis 
devotion to the l)red Scott ch'cision. and my opposition to it. 

I have expressed heretofore, and I now repeat, my opposition to 
the Dred Scott decision ; but I should be allowed to state the nature 
of that opposition, and I ask your indulgence while I do so. What 
is fairly implied by the term Judge Douglas has used. •• resistance to 
the decision "? I do not resist it. If I wanted to take Dred Scott 
from his master, I would be interfering with property, and that 
terrible difficulty that Judge Douglas speaks of. of interfering with 
property, would arise. But I am doing no such thing as that, but 
all that I am doing is refusing to obey it as a political rule. If I 
were in Congress, and a vote should come up on a question whether 



CHICAGO, ILL., JULY K), l«."i8. 85 

slavery should be prohibited in a new Territory, in spite of the 
Dred Scott decision, I would vote that it should. 

That is what I should do. Judge Douglas said last night 
that before the decision he might advance his opinion, and it might 
be contrary to the decision when it was made ; but after it was 
made he would abide by it until it was reversed. Just so ! We let 
this property abide by the decision, but we will try to reverse that 
decision. [Applause. J We will try to put it where Judge Douglas 
would not object, for he says he will obey it until it is reversed. 
Somebody has to reverse that decision, since it is made, and we 
mean to reverse it, and we mean to do it peaceably. 

What are the uses of decisions of courts ? They have two uses. 
As rules of property they have two uses. First, they decide upon 
the question before the court. They decide in this case that Dred 
Scott is a slave. Nobody resists that. Not only that, but they say 
to everybody else, that a person standing just as Dred Scott stands, 
is as he is. That is, they say that when a question comes up upon 
another person, it will be so decided again, unless the court decides in 
another way, unless the court overrules its decision. Well, we mean 
to do what we can to have the court decide the other way. [Re- 
newed applause.] That is one thing we mean to try to do. 

The sacredness that Judge Douglas throws around this decision 
is a degree of sacredness that has never been before thrown around 
any other decision. I have never heard of such a tiling. Why, de- 
cisions apparently contrary to that decision, or that good lawyers 
thought were contrary to that decision, have been made l)y that ver}- 
court before. It is the first of its kind ; it is an astonisher in 
legal history. It is a new wonder of the world. It is based upon 
falsehood in the main as to the facts ; allegations of facts upon 
which it stands are not facts at all in many instances, and no de- 
cision made on any question — the first instance of a decision made 
under so many unfavorable circumstances — thus placed, has ever 
been held by the profession as law, and it has always needed con- 
firmation before the lawyers regarded it as settled law. But Judge 
Douglas will have it that all hands must tuke this extraordinary 
decision, made under these extraordiuary circumstances, and give 
their vote in Congress in accordance with it, yield to it, and 
obey it in every possible sense. Circumstances alter cases. Do 
not gentlemen here remember the case of that same Supreme Court, 
some twenty-five or thirty years ago deciding that a National Bank 
was constitutional ? I ask, if somebody does not remember that a 



86 



SIM'.KCII y>V 1.1N( ol.N. 



N-itional Hank was .l.-daml to l)o constUutioual ? SiuU is ihe 
truth wlu-Uu-r it hv nM.u-ml.crcHl nr not. The Bank charter ran oi.t, 
and a re-chart.r was ^ranUnX by Contrress. That n-c-harU-r was 
hua lK-f..ro (Jeneral .lac-kson. It was ur-e.l u|,..n him, when he 
denied the e..nstitnti<.nality of the Uank. that the Supreme Court 
,,,,l ae.ided that it was eonstituti<.nal ; and that (Jenera Jackson 
then said that the Supreme Court had no right to hiy down 
a rule to govern a co-ordinate branch of the Government, the mem- 
bers of which had sworn to support the Constitution; that each 
member had sworn to support the Constitution as he understood it. 
I will venture here to say that 1 ha v. h.-ard -lu.lge Douglas say that he 
,pproved of General Ja.-ks<.n for that act. What has now become of 
•ill his tirade about "resistance to the Supreme Court ? 

My fellow-citizens, getting back a little,- for I pass from these 
points,- when Judge Douglas makes his threat of anM.lulat.on 
l.pon the '• alliance,- he is cautious to say that that warfare of las 
is to fall upon the ha<hrs of the Kepublic-an party. Almost every 
word he utters and every distinction he inakes, has its signdicance. 
He nu.ans for the Republicans who do not count themselves as 
leaders, to be his friends; he makes no fuss over them; tt is the 
leaders that be is making war upon. He wants it understood that 
the mass of the Republican party are really his friends. It is only 
the leaders that are doing something, that are intulerant, an<l that 
require exterminalicm at his hands. As this is clearly and un- 
questionably the light in which he presents that matter, want to ask 
vonr attention, addressing myself to the Rei.ublieans lu-re. hat T 
;„,V ask vou s..nK. (luestions as to where you, as the Republican 
pa;ty, would be placed if you sustaine.l Judge D<.uglas in Ins 
present i)osition by a re-election? 

I do n<.t claim, gentlemen, to be uuseltish: T do n<.l pretend that 
I would not like to go to th. Inil...! Stat.-s S.-uale. 1 make n., such 
hvno,-ritieal pretence; but I do say to you that in this mig-hty issue it 
18 nothing to you -nothing to the mass of the people of the nation 
whether or not Judge Douglas or myself shall ever be heard of 
after this night; it may be a trifle to either of us. but in con- 
nection with this mighty question, upon which hang the des inies 
of the nation, perhaps, it is absolutely nothing: but wh.n- wll y..u 
,... pi,.....l if X..U n. iu.lorse Judge Douglas? Dont you know lu.w 
,JU' is, iH.w ex.-eedingly anxious he is at all times, to seize upon 
al.vthing un<l evervthing t<» j.ersna.le y..u that something A. has 
.lone ,r" »^i<» yourselves? Why. he trie.l lo persua.ie you last n.ght 



('IlJf'A(U), UAj., .ITLY Kt. l.S.-)S. 87 

lliat our Jliiiiois Louishiliiro instructed liini to iiitnnliice the Ne- 
braska 1)111. There was noJKxly in the liegislature ever thought of 
such a thing; and when he first introduced the l)ill, he never thought 
of it; lv.it still he lights furiously for t!ie proposition, and that he 
did it because there was a standing instruction to our Senators to he 
always introducing Nebraska bills. 

He tells 3-0U he is for the Cincinnati platform ; he tells you he is 
for the Dred Scott decision. He tells you, not in his speech last night, 
but substantially in a former speech that he cares not if slavery is 
voted up or down; he tells you the struggle on Lecompton is past; 
it may come up again or not, and if it does, he stands where he 
stood when, in spite of him and his opposition, you built up the 
Republican party. If you indorse him, you tell him you do not care 
whether slavery be voted up or down, and he will close, or try to close 
your mouths with his declaration, repeated by the day, the week, the 
month, and the year. Is that what you mean? [Cries of "No;" one 
voice "Yes."] Yes, I have no doubt you who have always been 
for him, — you mean that. No doubt of that, soberly I have said, 
and I repeat it. I think, in the position in wliieh Judge Douglas 
stood in opposing the Lecompton Constitution, he was right; he 
does not know that it will return, l)ut if it does we may know 
w^here to find him, and if it does not, we may know where to look 
for him, and that is on the Cincinnati platform. 

Now, I could ask the Republican parly, after all the hard names 
that Judge Douglas has called them by, — all his repeated charges 
of their inclination to marry with and hug negroes; all his declara- 
tions of Black Republicanism: by the way, we are improving, the 
black has got rubbed otT, — but with all that, if he be indorsed by 
Republican votes, where do you stand? Plainly, you stand ready 
saddled, bridled, and harnessed, and waiting to be driven over to 
the slavery extension camp of the nation, — just ready to be driven 
over, tied together in a lot, to be driven over, every man with a rope 
around his neck, that halter being held by Judge Douglas. That 
is the question. If Republican men have been in earnest in what 
they have done, I think they had better not do it; but I think that 
the Republican party is made up of those who, as far as they can 
peaceably, will oppose the extension of slavery, and who will hope 
for its ultimate extinction. If they believe it is wrong in grasping 
up the new lands of the continent, and keeping them from the 
settlement of free white laborers, who want the land to bring up 
their families upon; if they are in earnest, although they may make 



88 SPEECH OF LINCOLN, 

u mistake, tln'V will y,n>w ivstless, nml tin- tiim- will foim* w)i«mi 
thfv will coiuf biifk again ami n*organi/A', if not by tiie same jiaun*, 
at ii-asl upon llu' same prini-ipk-s as llii'ir party now has. It U l»et- 
tiT, tlu'n, to savf tin* work while it is Itegiin. Y<ni have done the 
laltor; niaintr.in it, keep it. If men choose to serve yon, go with 
them; bnt as you have made up your organization upon principle, 
stand by it; for, as surely as (Jod reigns over yon, antl has inspired 
your mind, and given you a sense of i)ropriety, and continues to 
<:ive you hopi-, so surely will you still cling to these ideas, and you 
will at l;ist come back again aftt-r youi' wanderings, merely to do 
your work over again. 

TIIL DKCI.AR.VTlKN oK INDEPENDENCE. 

^Ve were often, — more than f>nce, at least, — in the course of 
Judge Douglas's speech last night, reminded tiiat this Government 
was made for white men; that he believed it was made for white 
nu-n. Well, that is putting it into a shape in which no one 
v.ants to deny it; Init the Judge then goes into his passion for 
drawing inrrrciiccs tiiat are not warranlt-d. I i)rotest now and 
forever, against that counterfeit logic which presumes that because 
I do not want a negro woman for a slave, I do necessarily want 
her for a wife. My understanding is that 1 need not have her 
for either, but, as (Jod made us separate, we can leave one 
another alone, and do one another much good thereby. There are 
wliite men enough to marry all the white women, and enough black 
men to marry all the black women; and in Gods name let them be 
so married. 'J'lie Judge regales us with the terrible enormities that 
take place by the mi.\ture of races; that the inferior race bears the 
superior down. Why, Jmlge, if we do not let them get together in 
the Territories, the y won't mix there. 

A ]'t>iri. — "Three cheers for Lincoln." (The cheers were given 
with a hearty good will.) 

Mr. JJiudIh. — 1 should say at least that that is a self-evident 
truth. 

Now, it happens that we meet together once every year, some- 
time about the fourth of July, for some rea.son or other. These 
fourth of July gatherings I suppo.se have their uses. 1 f you will 
inibdge me, I will state what I suppose to be some of them. 

\\\' are n<»w a mighty nation; we are thirty, or about thirty 
millioUH of people, and we own and iidiabit about one-fifteenth part 
of the dry lar)d of the wlnde earth. We run our memory back over 
the pages of history for aljout eighty -two ye.ns, and we discover 



CHICAGO, ILL., JULY 10, lS.-)8. 89 

that we were then :i very smull people iu point of numljers, vastly 
inferior to what we are now, with a vastly less extent of country, 
with vastly less of everything we deem desirable among men; 
we look upon the change as exceedingly advantageous to us and 
to our posterity, and we fix upon something that happened away 
back, as in some way or other being connected with this rise of 
prosperity. We find a race of men living in that day whom we 
claim as our fathers and grandfathers; they were iron men; they 
fought for the principle that they were contending for; and we 
understood that by what they then did it has followed that the 
degree of prosperity which we now enjoy has come to us. We 
hold this annual celebration to remind ourselves of all the good 
done iu this process of time, of how it was done and who did it, and 
how we are historically connected with it; and we go from these 
meetings in better humor with ourselves, we feel more attached the 
one to the other, and more firmly bound to the country we inhabit. 
In every way we are better men in the age and race and country in 
which we live, for these celebrations. 

But after we have done all this we have not yet reached the 

whole. There is something else connected with it. We have 

besides these men descended by blood from our ancestors among 

us, perhaps half our people, who are not descendants at all of these 
men; they are men who have come from Europe, — German, Irish, 
French, and Scandinavian, — men that have come from Europe them- 
selves, or whose ancestors have come hither and settled here, finding 
themselves our equals in all things. If they look back through this 
history to trace their connection with those days by blood, they find 
they have none, they cannot carry themselves back into that glori- 
ous epoch and make themselves feel that they are part of us; but 
when they look through that old Declaration of Independence, they 
find that those old men say that ' ' We hold these truths to be self- 
evident, that all men are created equal;' and then they feel that 
that moral sentiment, taught in that day, evidences their relation to 
tlicse men, that it is the father of all moral principle in them and 
that they have a right to claim it as though they were blood of 
the blood, and flesh of the flesh, of the men who wrote that Declara- 
tion [loud and long-continued applause] ; and so they are. That is 
the electric cord in that Declaration that links the hearts of patri- 
otic and liberty-loving men together ; that will link those patriotic 
hearts as long as the love of freedom exists in the minds of men 
throughout the world. [Applause.] 

Now, sirs, for the purpose of squaring things with this idea of 



«(0 SPF.Kcn t)l' I,IN(()|,\. 

»• do n't cMiv if slavi-ry is v<itt'(l iij) or voliil down,' lor .susluiuing 
tlu' Dri'd Si'olt di-cision, for holding that llic Pcchiralion of Indcpen- 
(k'uci* did not mean anytliiiii; at all, we liav«' ,Iii.l;_a' Douglas {^ivinj^ 
his exposition of what thr Di-rlaration of lntU'pen<k'n(e means, 
ami vf have him saying that the people of America are ecjual to 
the pettple of Kngland. Aeeording to his eoiistnuiioii, y(»M(I»r- 
mans are not eonneeted with it. Now, I ask you ill all soberness. 
if all these things, if indulged in, if ratified, if confirmed and in- 
dorsed, if taught to our children, and repeated to then, do not 
tend to rub out the sentiment of liberty in the country, and to 
tranform this Government into a Government of some other form? 
'J"h<'.>e arguiiK'iils that are made, that the inferior race are to 
be treated with as niiieh allowance as they arc capable of enjoying ; 
tliat as mmh is to be done for them as iheir condition will all<tsv. 
"What are these arguments ? They are the arguments that kings 
have made for enslaving the people in all ages of the world. You 
will find that all the arguments in favor of kingcraft were of this 
clas? ; they always bestrode the necks of the people, not that they 
wanted to do it, but because the people were better off for being 
ridden. That is their argument, and this argument of the Judge 
is the same old serpent that says, You work, and I eat ; You toil, 
and I will enjoy the fruits of it. Turn it in whatever way you will, 
whether it come from the mouth of a king as an excuse, for enslaving 
the people of his country, or from the mouth of men of one race as a 
reason for enslaving the men of another race, it is all the same old 
serpent ; and I liold, if that course of argumentation that is made for 
the purpose of convincing the public mind that we should not care 
about this, should be granted, it does not stop with the negro. I 
should like to know if. taking this old Declaration of Independence, 
which declares that all men are equal upon principle, and making 
exceptions to it, where will it stop ? If one man says it does net 
mean a negro, why not another say it does not mean some other man? 
If that declaration is not the truth, let us get the statute book, in 
which we find it, and tear it out ! "Who is so bold as to do it ? If 
it is not true, let us tear it out ! [Cries of "No, no." I Let us stick 
to it, then ; let us stand firmly by it. then. 

It may he argued lh.it there ar*- certain e(Miditions that make 
ncet'MHilie.H and impose them upon us; and to the extent that a ne- 
cessity is impo.sed upon a man, he must sidmiit to it. I think that 
waH the condition in which w*- fomxl ourselves when we established 
this government. We had sl.aves among us, we could not get our 



<'iri('A(;(), iij... .n'LY 1(1, lais. 91 

ConstiUilioa uuk'ss we permillccl tlicui to iviiuiiii in shivery, we 
ooukl not secure the good we cUd secure if we grasped for more; l)ut 
luiviug l)y necessity submitted to that much, it does not destroy the 
principle tlmt is the charter of our liberties. Let that cliarter stand 
as our standard. 

My friend has said to me that I am a poor hand to quote scrip- 
ture. I will try it again, however. It is said in one of the admoni- 
tions of our Lord, " As your Father in heaven is perfect, be ye also 
perfect." The Saviour, I suppose, did not expect that any human 
creature couki be perfect as the Father in heaven ; but he said, ' ' As 
your Father in heaven is perfect, be ye also perfect." lie set that 
up as a standard; and he who did most toward reaching that stand- 
ard, attained the highest degi'ce of moral perfection. So I say in 
relation to the principle that all men are created equal, let it be as 
nearly reached as we can. If we cannot give freedom to every 
creature, let us do nothing that will impose slavery upon any other 
creature. Let us then turn this Government back into the channel 
in which the framers of the Constitution originally placed it. Let 
us stand (irmly by each other. If w(; do not do so, we are turning 
in the contrary direction, that our friend Judge Douglas proposes — 
not intentionallj^ — as working in the traces that tend to make this 
one universal slave nation. He is one that runs in that direction, 
and as such I resist him. 

My friends, I have detained you about as long as I desired to 
do, and I have only to say, Let us discard all this quibbling about 
this man and the other man; this race and that race and the other 
race being inferior, and therefore they must be placed in an inferior 
position; discarding our standard that we have left us — let us dis- 
card all these things, and unite as one people throughout this land, 
until we shall once more stand up declaring that all men are created 
equal. * 

My friends, T could not, without launching oil' upon some new 
topic, which would detain you too long, continue to-night. I thank 
j'ou for this mo.st extensive audience that you have furnished me 
to-night. I leave you, hoping that the lamp of liberty will burn in 
your bosoms until there shall no longer be a doubt that all men are 
created free and equal. 



SPEECH OF SENATOR DOUGLAS. 

Dilircral at Bloomingtori, III., July IG, ISoS. (Mr. Lincoln was present.) 

Srnator Douglas said: — 

Mr. C'haikman, and FKLi.cnv-CiTizENs ok McLkan County : 
To say that I am piKrouiidly loiK-Ued by the hearty welcome yi>ii 
have extended me, and hy tlie kind and complimentary sentiments 
yuii have expressed toward me, is Itut a feehle expression of the 
feelini>;s of my heart. 

I appear before you this evening for the purpose of vindicating 
the course which I have felt it my duty to pursue iu the Senate of 
the United States upon the great public questions which have agi- 
tated the country since 1 last addressed 3'ou. I am aware that my 
senatorial course has been arraigned, not only by political foes, but 
by a few men pretending to belong to the Democratic p:irty, and yet 
acting in alliance with tlie enemies of that party, for the i)urpose of 
electing Republicans to Congress in this State, in place of the pre- 
sent Democratic delegation. 1 desire your attention whilst I address 
you, anil then I will ask your verdict whether I have not in all 
things aeteil in entire good faith, and honestly carried out the prin- 
ciples, the professions, and the avowals wiiicli I made iiefore my 
constituents previous to my going to the Senate. 

During tlie last session of Congress the great question of con- 
troversy has been the admission of Kansas into the I'nion under the 
Leeompton Constitution. 1 neeil not infoi'm you that from the be- 
ginning to the end I took bold, determined, and unrelenting ground 
in opposition to that Lecomi)t()n Constitution. My reason for that 
coinhf is contained in the fact that that instrument was not the art 
and ileetj of the people of Kansas, and did not einlmdy tiieir will. 
I hold it U) be a fundamental principle in all free govi-rnuK'nts — a 
|jrinci(»le a.sserte(l in tiie Declaration of liuh'pt'ndence, and unilerly- 
ing tlie Constitution of the Cnited States, as well as the Constitu- 
ti<m of every State of the Cnion — that every people ought U) have 
the right to form, adopt, and ratify the Constitution under whii-li 
they are to live. 

When I introduced the Nel)raska bill in the .'^i-nalf of the I'Mileil 
Stales, in 1854, I incorporated in it the provision th;il it was tin 
true intent and meaning «»f the bill, not to legislate slavery intoanv 



BLOOMINGTON, ILL., JULY IG, 1858. 93 

Territory or State, or to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the peo- 
ple thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their own domestic 
institutions in their own way, sul)ject only to the Constitution of the 
United States. In that bill the pledge was distinctly made that 
the people of Kansas should be left not only free, but perfectly free, 
to form and regulate their own domestic institutions to suit them- 
selves; and the question arose, when the Lecoraptou Constitution 
was si'ut in to Congress, and the admission of Kansas not only asked, 
but attempted to be forced under it, whether or not that Constitu- 
tion was the free act and deed of the people of Kansas? No man 
pretends that it embodied their will. Every man in America knows 
that it was rejected by the people of Kansas, by a majority of over 
ten thousand, before the attempt was made in Congress to force the 
Territory into the Union under that Constitution. 

I resisted, therefore, the Lecompton Constitution because it was 
a violation of the great principle of self-government, upon which all 
our institutions rest. I do not wish to mislead you, or to leave you 
in doubt as to the motives of my action. I do not oppose the Le- 
compton Constitution upon the ground of the slavery clause con- 
tained in it. I made my speech against that instrument before the 
vote was taken on the slavery clause. At the time I made it I did 
not know whether that clause would be voted in or out; whether it 
would be included in the Constitution, or excluded from it; and it 
made no difference with me what the result of the vote was, for the 
reason that I was contending for a principle, under which j'ou 
have no more right to force a Free State upon a people against their 
will, than 3'ou have to force a Slave State upon them without their 
consent. The error consisted in attempting to control the free 
action of the people of Kansas in any respect whatever. 

It is no argument with me to say that such and such a clause 
of the Constitution was not palatable, that you did not like it; it is 
a matter of no conseqence whether you in Illinois like any clause 
in the Kansas Constitution or not; it is not a question for you, 
but it is a question for the people of Kansas. They have the 
right to make a Constitution in accordance with their own wishes, 
and if you do not like it, you are not bound to go there and live 
under it. We in Illinois have made a Constitution to suit ourselves, 
and we think we have a toleral)ly good one ; but whether we have or 
not, it is nobody's business but our own. If the people in Ken- 
tucky do not like it, they need not come here to live under it; 
if the people of Indiana are not satisfied with it, what matters it 



04 Si'KKlIl nl" Dordl.AS. 

to us? \\\\ ami wo aloiu-. Iiavi- tin- rijilil to a voiei' in its adoption 
or n.'jt'ction. 

Keasoniuji thus, luy friends, my elforts were dirfflf*! to the vin- 
dication of tilt' <;ri'at principle involving the right of the people of 
each State and eaeli Ti-rritory to form and regnlate their own domes- 
tie institutions to suit themselves, subject only to the Constitution of 
our common vountry. I am rejoiced to be enabled to say to you tiiat 
we fought that battle until we forced the advocates of the Lecomp- 
ton instrument to al»a!idon the attempt of inilicting it upon the 
people of Kansas, without first giving them an opportunity of n 
jecting it. When we compi-lled them to abandon that effort, they 
rest)rted to a scheme. They agreed to refer the Constitution back to 
the people of Kansas, thus conceding the correctness of tlie princi- ] 
pic for which 1 had- contended, and granting all I had desired, i)ro- 
vided the mode of that reference and the mode of submission to the 
people had been just, fair, and ecjual. 

THE ENCil.ISII nii.L. 

T did not consider the mode of submission provided in what is 
known as the " English ' bill a fair submission, and for this simple 
reason, among others: It provided, in ellect, that if the people of 
Kansas wduM accept the Lecompton Constitution, that they might 
come in with :i"),()UO inhabitants; but that, if they rejected it, in 
order that tlicy might form a constitution agreeable to their own 
feelings, and conformable to their own principles, that they should 
not l)e received into the Union initil they had "J."}, 420 inhabitants. 
In other words, it said to the i)eople, If you will come into the Cnion 
as a slaveh«)lding State, 3-ou shall be admitted with ii5,UU0 inhabit- 
ants; but if you insist on being a Free State, you shall not be ad- 
milted until you have ICI, 12(1. I was not willing to discriminate 
U'tween Free States and Slave States in this Confederacy. I will 
not put a restriction upon a Slavi' State that I would not put upon 
a Free State, and 1 will not permit, if I can prevent it, a restriction 
being put upon a Free State which is not ai)plieil with the .same 
force to the slaveholding States. 

K(|Uality among the States is a cardinal and fundamental prin- 
ciple in our Confederacy, and cannot be violated without overturn- 
ing our systt'in of government. Hence I demanded that the Free 
States and the slaveholding States should be kept on an exact 
efpuility, one with tiic other, as the Constitution of tiic rnitt-il 
•StiilcH had placed them. 1 1" tin- people of Kansas want a sla\r- 



l>L()()M'X(i'r()X, il.L., .ITLV Ki, l.s:)8. !»:> 

holding State, let them have it; and if they want a Free State they 
have aright to it; and it is not for the people of Illinois, or Mis- 
souri, or Xew York, or Kentucky, to complain, whatever the decision 
of tlie people of Kansas may be upon that point. 

But ^Yhile I was not content with the mode of submission con- 
tained in the English bill, and while I could not sanction it for the 
reason that, in my opinion, it violated the great principle of equality 
among the ditferent States, yet when it became the law of the land, 
and under it the question was referred back to the people of Kansas 
for their decision, at an election to be held on the first Monday in 
August next, I bowed in deference, bemuse whatever decision the 
people shall make at that election must be final, and conclusive 
' of the whole question. If the people of Kansas accept the propo- 
sition submitted by Congress ; from that moment Kansas wiil become 
a State of the Union, and there is no way of keeping her out if you 
should try. The act of admission will become irrepealable ; Kansas 
would be a State ; and there would be an end of the controversy 
On the other hand, if at that election the people of Kansas shall 
reject the proposition, as is now generally thought will be the case, 
from that moment the Lecompton Constitution is dead, and again 
there is an end of the controversy. So you see that either way, on 
the 3d of August next, the Lecompton controversy ceases and termi- 
nates forever ; and a similar question can never arise unless some 
man shall attempt to play the Lecompton game over again. But, 
my fellow-citizens, I am well convinced that that game will never 
be attempted again ; it has been so solemnly and thoroughly rebuked 
during the last session of Congress that it will find but few advocates 
in the future. The President of the United States, in his annual 
message, expressly recommends that the example of the Minnesota 
case, wherein Congress required the Constitution to be submitted to 
the vote of the people for ratification or rejection, shall be followed 
in all future cases ; and all we have to do is to sustain as one man 
that recommendation, and the Kansas controversy can never again 
arise. 

My friends, I do not desire you to understand me as claiming 
for myself any special merit for the course I have pursued on this 
question. I simply did my duty, — a duty enjoined by fidelity, by 
honor, by patriotism ; a duty which I could not have shrunk from, 
in my opinion, without dishonor and faithlessness to my constitu- 
ency. Besides, I only did what it was in the power of any one 
man to do. There were others, men of eminent ability, men of wid^ 



:m; spkkcii <>i" i)(»r(;i.As, 

rc|iut:iti*)n, ivnowm-tl all (tvt-r Anu'iica, who K'd tin- van, and arc cn- 
titli'il to the «i;reaU*at shaie of tlu' i-ivdil. Koremo.sl among Ihem all, 
as lie was head and shoulders above them all, was Kentucky's great 
and gallant statesman. John J. Crittenden. Hy his course upon 
this (juestion he has shown himself a worthy successor of the im- 
mortal Clay, and well may Kentucky l»e proud of him. I will not 
withhold, either, the meed of praise due the Uepulilican party in 
Congress for the course which they pursued. In the language of 
the New York Tn'/iinn, they came to the Douglas jjlatform, altan- 
doning their own, believing that under tlu- pei-uliar circumstances 
they would in that moile lieyt sul)serve the interests of the country. 

My friends, when I am battling for a great principle, I want 
aid and support from whatever quarter I can get it, in order to carry 
out that prini-iple. I never hesitate in my course when I lind those 
who ou all former occasions diH'ered from me upon the principle 
fuially coming to its sujjport. Nor is it for mo to in(iuire into the 
motives which animated the Kepublican members of Congress in 
supporting the Crittenden-Montgomery bill. It is enough for me 
that in that case they came s<piare up and indorseil the great principle 
of the Kansas-Neliraska bill, which declared that Kans.is should be 
received into the Iiiion. with slavery or without, as its Constitution 
should j)rescrilie. 

I was till' more rejoiced at the action of the Tiepublicans on that 
occasion for allot lii-r reason. 1 could not forget, you will not soon 
forget, h(»w unanimous that party was, in 1854, in declaring that 
never should another Slave Stale be admitted into this Union under 
any circumstances whatever ; and \<t we lind that during this last 
winter they came up and voted to a man, declaring that Kansas 
should come in as a State with i^laxt ly under the Lecimipton Consti- 
tution, if her people desired it; and that if they did not, they might 
form a new Constitution, with slavery or without, just as they 
pleased. I do not (pu'slion the motive when men tlo a good act; 
I give them credit for the act ; and if they will stand by that prin- 
eiph' in the future, and abandon their heresy of " no more Slavi' States 
even if the people want tlMiii, ' I will then give them still more 
cn'ilit. I am afraid, though, that they will not stand by it in the 
future. If lliey do. I will freely forgive tlit'in .all the abuse they 
heaped upon me in IS.') J, for having advixated and carried out that 
same principle in the Kansas. .\eliraska bill. 

IllinoiH stjinds proudly forward as a Slate which early took her 
jiosilion in favor of the principle of popular .soNcreignty as appiu-d 



liLOOMINUTON ir.L., .IlILY l(i, 1858. 07 

to the Territories of the United States. When the Coniproniise 
measure of 1850 passed, predicated upon that i)rineipU', 30U recollect 
the excitement which prevailed throughout the northern portion of 
this State. I vindicated those measures then, and defended myself 
for having voted for them, upon the ground that they emljodied the 
principle that every people ought to have the privilege of forming 
and regulating their own institutions to suit themselves ; that each 
State had that right, and I saw no reason why it should not be ex- 
tended to the Territories. When the people of Illinois had an 
opportunity of passing judgment upon those measures, they indorsed 
them by a vote of their representatives in the Legislature, — sixty- 
one in the affirmative, and only four in the negative, — in which they 
asserted that the principle eml)odied in the measures was the birth- 
right of freemen; the gift of Heaven; a principle vindicated by our 
revolutionary fathers; and that no limitation should ever be placed 
upon it, either in the organization of a Territorial government or the 
admission of a State Into the Union. 

That resolution will stand unrepealed on the journals of the Leg- 
islature of Illinois. In obedience to it, and in exact conformity 
with the principle, I I)rought in the Kansas- Nebraska bill, re(iuiring 
that the people should be left perfectly free in the formation of 
their institutions and in the organization of their government. I 
now submit to you whether I have not in good faith redeemed that 
pledge, that the people of Kansas should be left perfectly free to 
form and regulate their institutions to suit themselves. And yet, 
while no man can arise in any crowd and deny that I have been 
faithful to my principles and redeemed my pledge, we find those 
who are struggling to crush and defeat me, for the very reason that 
I have been faithful in carrying out those measures. We find the 
Republican leaders forming an alliance with professed Lecompton 
men to defeat every Democratic nominee and elect Repul)lieans in 
their places, and aiding and defending them in order to help them 
break down Anti-Lecompton men, whom they acknowledge did right 
in their opposition to Lecompton. The only hope that Mr. Lincoln 
has of defeating me for the Senate rests in the fact that I was faith- 
ful to my principles, and that he may be able in consequence of that 
fact to form a coalition with Lecompton men who wish to defeat 
me for that fidelity. 

This is one element of strength upon which he relies to accom- 
plish his object. He hopes he can secure the few men claiming to 
be friends of the Lecompton Constitution, and for that reason you 

7 



will liml 111- ilufs not say a word a^'aiiisl tlu- Lt'coiiiploii Conslitiitioii 
or its 8Upi>orti'rs. He is as siU'Ul as tin- «:ravi' upon that subji-ct. 
HehuUl Mr. Lincoln courting' JjCfoinpton voli-s, in onk-r that he may 
iXo to the Senate as the representative of Hcpuhliean principles ! 
Vou know that the alliance exists. I think you will lintl that it will 
007A' out before the contest is over. 

Kvery llepuhliean paper takes ground willi my Lecouiptou ene- 
mies, encouraging them, stimulating thein in their oi)positioM to me, 
and styling my friends l)olters from the Democratic i)arty, and their 
Lecompton allies the true Democratic party of the country.' If they 
thiidv that they can mislead and deceive the people of Illinois, or the 
Democracy of Illinois, hy that sort of an unnatural and unholy alli- 
ance, I think they show very little sagacity, or give the people very 
little cnMlit for intclli^r,.,ic('. It must be a contest cf principle. 
Either the radical Abolition principles of Mr. Lincoln must be main- 
tained, or the strong, constitutional, national Democratic principles 
with which I am identified must be carried out. 

CONDITION (»K TllK l'.\KTV. 

There can be but two great political parties in this country. The 
contest this year and in ISGO must necessarily be between the De- 
mocracy and the Repultlicans, if we can judge from iiresciit indica- 
tions. My whole life has been identified with the Democratic party. 
I have devoted all of my energies to advocating its principles and 
sustaining its organization. In this State the party was never bet- 
ter united or more harmonious than at this time. The State Con- 
vention which a.sserabled on the 2d of April, and nominated Fondey 
and French, was regularly called liy the State Central Committee, 
appointed by the i)rcvious State Conventicm for that purpose. The 
meetings in each county in the State for the appointment of delegates 
to the Conventicm were regularly calld by the county committi-cs, 
and the proceedings in every county in the State, as wi-ll as in the 
Stale Convention, were regular in all respects. No convention was 
ever more harmonious in its action, or showed a more tolerant and 
just spirit toward brother Democrats. The leaders of the i)arty 
there assembled, declared their unalterable attachment to the time- 
honored principles and org.ini/atioii of the Democratic party, and to 
th.- Cincinnati platform. They declan-d thai that platform was the 
only uuth(tritative exposition of Democratic principles, and that it 
must so slaiKl until changed Ity anothi-r National Convention : lli;ii 
ill the mean time they woui<l make no new tests, and submit to 



lU.OOMINGTON, ILL., .ULY Ki. ISoS. 99 

none ; tliiit tliey \v<«ild proscribe no Democrat, nor permit the pro- 
scripticm of Democrats because of their opinion upon Lecomptonisra, 
or upon any other issue which has arisen, but would recognize all 
men as Democrats who remained inside of the organization, preserved 
the usages of the party, and supported its nominees. 

These bolting Democrats who now claim to be the peculiar 
friends of the National /Administration, and have formed an alliance 
with Mr. Lincoln and the Republicans for the purpose of defeating the 
Democratic party, have ceased to claim fellowship with the Demo- 
cratic organization; have entirely separated themselves from it ; and 
are endeavoring to build up a faction in the State, not with the 
hope or expectation of electing an}- one man who professes to be a 
Democrat to office in any county in the State, but merely to secure 
the defeat of the Democratic nominees, and the election of Republi- 
cans in their places. What excuse can any honest Democrat have 
for abandoning the Democratic organization and joining with the 
Republicans to defeat our nominees, in view of the platform estab- 
lished by the State Convention ? They cannot pretend that they 
were proscribed because of their opinions upon Lecompton or any 
other question, for the Convention expressly declared that they rec- 
ognized all as good Democrats who remained inside of the organiza- 
tion and aljided by the nominations. If the question is settled or 
is to be considered as finally disposed of by the vote on the 3d of 
August, what possible excuse can any good Democrat make for 
keeping up a division for the purpose of prostrating his party, after 
that election is over and the controversy has terminated? It is evi- 
dent that all who shall keep up this warfare for the purpose of 
dividing and destroying the party have made up their minds to aban- 
don the Democratic organization forever, and to join those for 
whose benefit they are now tr3ing to distract our party, and elect 
Repu])licans in the place of the Democratic nominees. 

I sulnnit the question to you whether I have been right or wrong 
in the course I have pursued in Congress. And I submit, also, 
whether I have not redeemed in good faith every pledge I have 
made to you. Then, my friends, the question recurs, whether I 
shall be sustained or rejected? If you are of opinion that Mr. 
Lincoln will advance the interests of Illinois better than I can ; that 
he wil sustain her honor and her dignity higher than it has been 
in my power to do; that your interests and the interests of your 
children require his election instead of mine ; it is your duty to give 
him your support. If, on the contrary, you think that my adher- 



KlU 



sim:i:( 11 »>i" i)nr(;i,As. 



v\n-r to tlu'si- ^Tt'iil fiiiuUiiiM-ntul nriiic-u.Us uix.n \vliich our (icvt-rn- 
im-iil is foumlfd is tin- triK- iii(.<U' of sustuininji the poiuv :imi 
hannony of the fountry, mid ni:.iut:iiniM«,' the perpetuity of the 
Uepul.lie. 1 then ask you to '.iUnnl l.y me in the ellorls 1 have made 

to that eiul. 

THE TWO POINTS AT ISSl'K. 

And this brings me to the consideration of tlie two points at 
issue between Mr.''l.ineolu and myself. The Kepnbliean Conven- 
tion, when it assembled at Springlield, did me and the eountry the 
honor of indicating the man who was to be tlu ir stanchird-bearer. 
and the embodiment of their princii.les, in this State. 1 owe them 
my gratitude for thus making up a direct issue between Mr. J.incoln 
amfmyself. I shall have no controversies of a personal character 
with Mr. Lincoln. I have known him well for a quarter of a cen- 
tury. 1 have known him, as you all know him, a kind-hearted, 
amiable gentleman, a right good fellow, a voilhy citizen, of emi- 
nent abilitv as a lawyer, and, I have no doubt, suflieient ability to 
make a good Senator. The (luestion, then, for y<.u to decide is, 
whether his principles are more in accordance with the genius of 
our free institutions, the peace and harmony of the Kepul)lic, than 
tho.se which 1 advocate. He tells you. in his speech made at Spring- 
field, before the Convention which gave him his unanimous nom- 
ination, that, — 

'•A house divided against itself cannot stand." 
"I brlieve this Covernment cannot endun- pcnnantiitly, hali 

Slave and half Free." 

"I do not expect the Union to be (lis.solved, I don t expect the 
house to fall; but 1 do expect it will cease to be divided. " 

•• It will become all one thing or all the other " 
That is the fundamental principle upon which he sets out in this 
campaign. Well, 1 do not suppose you will beruve one word of it 
when you come to examine it carrfuUy. and s«-e its consequences: 
Altholigh the Hepublic has existed from IT^'.I to this day, divide.l 
into Imvc States and Slave States, yet we are tohl that in the future 
it cannot endure unless they shall become all Free or all Slave. [ A 
voice, "All Free." ] For that reason he says, as the gentleman in 
the crowd says, that the}' must be all Free. He wishes to go to the 
Senate of the Cnited States in order to carry out that line of pul)lic 
IX)licy, which will comiM-l all the States in the South to become Free. 
How is he going to do it ? Has Congn'.ss any p.aver <»v(>r the 
Hubject of slavery in Kintiicky. or Virginia, or any ollur Sl.itt" ..f 



HLooMlNtiToX, ILL., JULY K). ;,s.-..s. jqI 

tkis Union? How, then, is :jr. Lincoln goi„g to carry out that 

principle which he says is essential to tlie existence of this Union 

to wit: That slavery must be abolished in all the States of the 

Union, or must be established in them all? You convince the South 

that they must either establish slavery in Illinois, and in every other 

Free State, or submit to its al)olition in every Southern State and 

you invite them to make a warfare upon the Northern States in order 

to establish slavery, for the sake of perpetuating it at home. Thus 

Mr. Lincoln invites, by his proposition, a war of sections, a war 

between Illinois and Kentucky, a war between the Free States and 

the Slave States, a war between the North and the South for the 

purpose of either exterminating slavery in every Southern State or 

planting it in every Northern State. He tells you that the safety 

of this llc-public, that the existence of this Union, depends upon 

that warfare being carried on until one section or the other shall be 

entirely subdued. 

The States must all be Free or Slave, for a house divided ao-ainst 
Itself cannot stand. That is Mr. Lincoln's argument upon that 
question. My friends, is it possible to preserve peace between the 
i\orth and the South if such a doctrine shall prevail in either section 
of the Union? Will you ever submit to a warfare waged by the 
Southern States to establish slavery in Illinois? What man in 
Illinois would not lose the last drop of his hearts blood liefore he 
would submit to the institution of slavery being forced upon us by 
the other States, against our will? And if that be true of us, what 
Southern man would not shed the last drop of his heart's blood to 
prevent Illinois or any other Northern State, from interferin<>- to 
abolish slavery in his State? Each of these States is sovereign 
under the Constitution; and if we wish to preserve our liberties, the 
reserved rights and sovereignty of each and every State must be 
maintained. 

I have said on a former occasion, and here I repeat, that it is 
neither desirable nor possible -to establish uniformity in the local 
and domestic institutions of all the States of this Confederacy. 
And why? Because the Constitution of the United States rests 
upon the right of eveiy State to decide all its local and domestic 
institutions for itself. It is not possible, therefore, to make them 
conform to each other; unless we subvert the Constitution of the 
United States. No, sir, that cannot be done. God forbid that 
any man should ever make the attempt. Let that Constitution ever 
be trodden under foot and destroyed, and there will not be wisdom 



\{\2 ^VKFAll or l)()r(iLAS, 

and patriotism fiiou'ili Ifft to make aiiotlit-r that will work iialf so 
will. Our safety, our liberty, depends upon preserving the Consti- 
tution of the United States as our fathers made it, inviolate, at iIk' 
same tiiiu- iiiaiiilaiuinL^ the rcsfi\c«l riLrlits and tlu' sovcrciirnt y of 
each Stixte over its local and domt'stic institutions, against Federal 
authority, or any outside interference. 

The ditference between Mr. Lincoln and myself upon this point 
is, that he goes for a combination of the Northern States, or the 
organization of a sectional political party in the Free States, to make 
war on the domestic institutions of the Southern States, and to 
prosecute that war until they shall all be subdued, and made to 
conform to such rules as the North shall dictate to them. I am 
aware that Mr. Lincoln, on Saturday ni<,dit last, made a speech at 
(Miicago for the pnrpo.se, as he .said, of explaining his position on 
this (jueslion. I have read that speech with great care, and will do 
him the justice to say that it is marked by eminent ai)ility, and 
great success in concealing what he did mean to say in his Si^ring- 
field speech. His answer to this point, which I have been arguing, 
is, that he never did mean, and that I ought to know that he never 
intended to convey the idea, that he wished the •' people of the Free 
States to cittrr into the Southern States and interfere with slavery." 

Well, I never did sujipose that he ever dri'anicd of i-ntcring 
into Kentucky to make war upon her institutions ; nor will any 
Abolitionist ever enter into Kentucky to wage such war. Tluir 
mode of making war is not to enter into those States where slavery 
exists, anil there interfere, and render themselves responsil)le for the 
consequences. Oh, no ! They stand on this side of the Oiiio River 
and shoot across. They stand in Uloomington, and shake their fists 
at the people of Jicxinglon . they threaten South Carolina from 
Chicago. And they call that liravery ! Hut they are very particu- 
lar, as Mr. Lincoln says, not to enter into lliose States for tin- 
purpose of interfering with the institution of slavery there. I am 
not only opposed to entering into the Slave Slates, for the purpo.se 
of interfering with their institutions, but I am opj)osed to a secti«»nal 
agitiiti<m to control the institutions of other Statt-s. I am oppo.sed 
to organizing a secti<tind party, which appeals to Northern i)ride, 
an<l Nortiiern passion and prejudice, against Southern institutions, 
thus stirring up ill-feeling and hot blood lietween brethren of the 
same Kepublic. I am opposed to that whole system of sectional 
agitation, which can procjuce nothing but strife, l)ut tlisconl, but 
lioHtililv, and. linally. disunion. 



HLOOMINUTON, ILL., .lULY K;, Isr.S. Kj.-j 

And yet Mr. Lincoln asks you to send him to the Senate of the 
United States, in order that he may cany out that great principle 
ol" his, that all the States must be Slave, or all must be Free. I 
repeat, How is he to carry it out when he gets to the Senate ? Does 
he intend to introduce a bill to abolish slavery in Kentucky? Does 
he intend to introduce a bill to interfere with slavery in \Miginia? 
How is he to accomplish, what he professes must be done in order 
to save the Union ? Mr. Lincoln is a lawyer, sagacious and able 
enough to tell you how he proposes to do it. I ask Mr. Lincoln 
how it is that he proposes ultimately to bring about this uniformity 
in each and all the States of the Union. There is but one possible 
mode which 1 can see, and perhaps Mr. Lincoln intends to pursue it; 
that is, to introduce a proposition into the Senate to change the 
Constitution of the United States, in order that all the State Legis- 
latures may be abolished. State sovereignty blotted out, and the 
power conferred upon Congress to make local laws and establish the 
domestic institutions and police regulations uniformly throughout 
the United States. Are you prepared for such a change in the 
institutions of your country ? 

Whenever you shall have blotted out the State sovereignties, 
abolished the State Legislatures, and consolidated all the power in 
the Federal Government, you will have established a consolidated 
Empire as destructive to the liberties of the people and the rights of 
the citizen as that of Austria, or Russia, or any other despotism that 
rests upon the necks of the people. How is it possible for Mr. 
Lincoln to carry out his cherished principle of abolishing slavery 
everywhere or establishing it everywhere, except by the mode which 
I have pointed out, — by an amendment to the Constitution to the 
effect that I have suggested ? There is no other possible mode. 
Mr. Lincoln intends resorting to that, or else he means nothing by 
the great principle upon which he desires to be elected. My friends, 
I trust that we will be able to get him to define what he does mean 
by this scriptural quotation that "A house divided against itself 
cannot stand;" that the Government cannot endure permanently, 
half Slave and half Free; that it must be all one thing, or all the 
other. Who among you expects to live, or have his children live, 
until slavery shall be established in Illinois or abolished in South 
Carolina? Who expects to see that occur during the lifetime of 
ourselves or our children? 

There is but one possible way in which slavery can be abolished, 
and that is by leaving a State, according to the principle of the 



KM SPKKCII «)l' |);)n;LA>;. 

Ksiusas-Nebraska bill, perfi't-tly f !>••.• lo i"i)rin and rt'<:al:ite Us insti- 
tutions in its own way. That was the principle upon which this 
Ht'pul)lic WHS founded, and it is under the operation of that princi- 
ple that we iiave been able to preserve the Union thus far. Untler 
its operations, slavery disappeared from New Hainpsliire, from 
Rhode Island, from Connecticut, from New York, from New Jersey, 
from Pennsylvania, from six of the twelve original slaveholding 
States; and this «xra<Uial system of en)ancipation went on (piietly, 
peacefully, and steadily, so long as we in the Free States minded 
our own l>usiness and left our neighbors alone. Hut the moment 
the Al)olition societies were organized throughout the North, preach- 
ing a violent c-rusade against shivery in the Southern States, this 
combination necessarily caused a counter-combination in the South, 
and a sectional line was drawn which was a Ijarrier to any further 
emancipation. 

Hear in mind that emancipation has not taken place in any one 
State since the Free-soil party was organized as a political party in 
this country. Emancipation went on gradually in State after State 
so long as the Free States were content with managing their own 
afTairs and leaving the South i)erfeclly free to do as they plea.sed; 
l)ut the moment the North said. Wf are powerful enough to control 
you of the South; the moment the Norlh i)roclaimed itself the de- 
termined master of the South; that moment the South combined to 
resist tiie attack, and thus sectional parties were formed, and grad- 
ual emancipation ceased in all the Northern slaveholding States. 
And yet Mr. Lincoln, in \ iew of these historical facts, proposes to 
keep up this sectional agitation; band all the Northern States to- 
gether in one political party; elect a l^resiilent by Northern votes 
alone; and then, of coui*sc, make a cabinet composed of Northern 
men, ami adniinisti-r the (Jovernmeiit by Northern men only, deny- 
ing all the Southern States of this t'nion any participation in the 
administration of jilfairs whatsoever. 

I submit to you, my fellow-citizens, whether such a line of policy 
is consistent with the peace and harmony of the country ? Can the 
Union endure under such a system of policy ? He has taken his 
position in favor of sectional agitation and sectional warfare. I 
have taken mine in favor of securing peace, harmony, and good-will 
among all the States, by permitting each to mind its own itusiness, 
and diseoimtenaneing any attempt at iMterl\'renee on the part of one 
Slate with the tlomestic concerns of the others. 



BLOOMIXGTOX, ILL., .ITLV i,;. ]S58. ]05 

NO APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COfRT. 

Mr. Lincoln makes another issue with me, an.l he wishes to con- 
fine the contest to these two issues. I accept the other as readily 
as the one to wliich I have already referred. The other i.ssue is a 
crusade against the Supreme Court of the United States, because of 
Its decision in the Dred Scott case. xAIy fellow-citizens, I have no 
issue to make with the Supreme Court. I have no crusade to preach 
against that august body. I have no warfare to make upon it I re- 
ceive the decision of the Judges of that Court, wheu pronounced, as 
the final adjudication upon all questions within their jurisdiction. ' It 
would be perfectly legitimate and proper for Mr. Lincoln, myself 
or any other lawyer, to go before the Supreme Court and argue any 
question that might arise there, taking either side of it, and enforc- 
mg it with all our ability, zeal, and energy; but when the decision 
is pronounced, that decision becomes the law of the land, and he 
and you, and myself, and every other good citizen, must bow to it,' 
and yield obedience to it. Unless we respect and bow in deference 
to the final decisions of the highest judicial tribunal in our country, 
we are driven at once to anarchy, to violence, to mob law, and there 
IS no security left for our property or our civil rights. Wiiat pro- 
tects your property but the law, and who expounds the law but the 
judicial trilninals; and if an appeal is to be taken from the decisions 
of the Supreme Court of the United States in all cases where a per- 
son does not like the adjudication, to whom is that appeal to be 
taken ? Are we to appeal from the Supreme Court to a county- 
meeting like this? And shall we here re -argue the question and 
reverse the decision ? If so, how are we to enforce our decrees after 
we lune pronounced them ? Does Mr. Lincoln intend to appeal 
from the decision of the Supreme Court to a Republican caucus, or 
a town meeting ? To whom is he going to appeal ? ["To Love- 
joy," and shouts of laughter.] Why, if I understand aright, Lin- 
coln and Lovejoy are co-appellants in a joint suit, and inasmuch as 
they are so, he would not certainly appeal from the Supreme Court 
to his own partner to decide the case for him. 

Mr. Lincoln tells you that he is opposed to the decision of the 
Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case. Well, suppose he is ; what 
IS he going to do about it ? I never got beat in a law suit in my life 
that I was not opposed to the decision; and if I had it before the 
Circuit Court I took it up to the Supreme Court, where, if I got 



km; siM'^j-:(II m- itonii.As, 

hral n^aiii, I tljotiixlit it lictttr to say no iiiorr about it. as I did not 
kaow of any lawful mode of reversing the decision of the highest 
tribunal on earth. 

To whom is Mr. Lincoln j;oiii»j; to appeal ? M'liy, lie says he is 
•xoiujj to appi-al to L'on<.^rc'SS. Jii't us see how liu will appeal to 
Congress. \lv tells us that on the Hth of Maivh, ISliO, Con^jress 
passed a law calli'd the Missouri Coinprouiise, prolilhiting slavery 
forever in all the territory west of the Mississijipi au<l north of the 
Missouri line of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes; that Dred 
Scott, a slave in Missouri, was taken by his master to Fort Sneilinij, 
in the jjreseiit State of Minne.sota, situated <jn the wi'st branch of 
the Mississippi llivir. and conse(|Uently in tlie I'erritory where 
slavery was prohibited by tlie Act of lSl!(t; and that when Dred 
Scott appealed for his freedom in conse(juence of having been taken 
into a fri'c Territory, the Supreme Court of the United Slates de- 
cided that Dred Scott did not become free by being taken into that 
Territory, Init that having been carried back to Missouri, was yet a 
slave. Mr. Lincoln is going to appeal from that decision and 
reverse it. He does not intend to reverse it as to Dred Scott. Oh, 
no ! But he will reverse it so that it shall not stand as a rule in 
the future. 

How will he do it? He says that if he is elected to the Senate, 
he will introduce and pass a law just like the Mis.souri Compromise, 
prohibiting slaver}- again in all the 'i'erritorii-s. Suppo.>>e he does 
re-enact liie same law which the Court has pronounced unconstitu- 
tional, will that make it constitutional ? If the Act of ISiiO was 
unconstitutional in consequence of Congress having no power to pass 
it, will Mr. Jiincoln make it constitutional by })assing it again? 
What clause of the Constitution of the United States provides for 
an app«'al from the decision of the Supreme Court to Congress? If 
my reading of that instrument is correct, it is to the etiect that that 
Constitution and all laws made in pursuance of it are of tlii' supreme 
l.iw of the land; anything in the Constitution or laws of a .Slate to 
the contrary notwithstanding. Hence, you will lind that only such 
A(!t8 of Congress are laws as are made in pursuance of the Constitu- 
tion. 

When Congress 1ms pns.sed an Act, and put it on the statute 
book as hiw, wlio is to tlecide whether that .\ct is in conformity 
with the Constitution or not? 

The Constitution of the United Slates tells you. It has pro 
vided that the judicial power of the Unit* il ."^tales shall be vesti'd in 



BLOOMIXUTON. ILL., ,ICLV l(i, 1858. 



10^ 



. a Supreme Court, aiul such inferior Courts as Con<rre.ss may from 
time to time orchiin and establish. Thus, by tlie Constitution, the Su- 
preme Court is dechired, in so many words, to be the tribunal, cand 
the only tribunal, which is competent to adjudicate upon the consti- 
tutionality of an Act of Congress. He tells you that that Court has 
adjudicated the question, and decided that an Act of Congress pro- 
hibiting slavery in the Territory is unconstitutional and void; and 
yet he sa3-s he is going to pass another like it. What for? \Vill it 
be any more valid? Will he be able to convince the Court that the 
second Act is valid when the first is invalid and void? What good 
does it do to pass a second Act? Why, it will have the effect to 
arraign the Supreme Court before the people, and to bring them into 
an the political discussions of the country. Will that do any good? 
Will it inspire any more confidence in the judicial tribunals of the 
country? 

What good can it do to wage this war upon the Court, array- 
ing it against Congress, and Congress against the Court? The 
Constitution of the United States has said that this Government 
shall be divided into three separate and distinct branches— the 
Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial; and of course each 
one is supreme and independent of the other within the circle 
of its own powers. The functions of Congress are to enact the 
statutes, the province of the Court is to pronounce upon their 
validity, and the duty of the Executive is to carry the decision into 
effect when rendered by the Court. And yet, notwithstanding the 
Constitution makes the decision of the Court final in regard to the 
validity- of an Act of Congress, Mr. Lincoln is going to reverse that 
decision by passing another Act of Congress. 

When he has become convinced of die folly of the proposition, 
perhaps he will resort to the same subterfuge that I have found 
others of his party resort to, which is to agitate and agitate until he 
can change the Supreme Court and put other men in the places of 
the present incumbents. I wonder whether Mr. Lincoln is right 
sure that he can accomplish that reform. He certainly will not°be 
able to get rid of the present Judges until they die, and from pres- 
ent appearances I think they have as good security of life as lie has 
himself. I am afraid that my friend Lincoln would not accomplish 
this task during his own lifetime, and yet he wants to go to Con- 
gress to do it all in six years. Do you think that he can persuade 
nine Judges, or a majority of them, to die in that six vears, just to 
accommodate him? They are appointed Judges for life, and 



lOS SPKF.cil ()F I tore LAS. 

arinnliiij; to llit- pivseiit organization, now oucs raunot he appoiiitt-il 
(luriiiix that tinu'; luit ho is going to agitate until they die, and then 
have the l*r»-sideiit appoint good Uepiililieans in tlieir plaees. He 
had lietter l>e (jiiite sure that he gels a Itepuliliean President at the 
saiiu' time to appoint them. He wants to have a Kepiililican I'resi- 
(U-nt eleeted hy N'ortliern votes, not a St)uthern man participating, 
and eh-eted for tlie jiurpose of phieing none hut Hi'puhlieans on the 
beneh; and, conseciuently, if he succeeds in eU'cting tiiat President, 
and succeeds in persuading the present Judges to die, in order that 
their vacancies may l>e liUed, that the President will then appoint 
tiieir successors. And by what process will he ai)i)oint them? He 
lirst looks for a man who has the legal (lualificatious, perhaps he 
takes Mr. Lincoln, and sa}"^, "Mr. Lincoln, would j'ou like to go 
on the Supreme heiicii? " "Ves." replies Mr. Lincoln. "Well," 
returns the Ki'puljlican President. "I cannot appoint you until you 
give me a pledge as to h(»w you will decide in tiie event of a par- 
ticular (juestion coming before you." What would you think of 
Mr. 1/nicoln if he would consent to give that pledge? And yet he 
is going to prosecute a war until he gets the present Judges out, 
and then catechise each man and require a pledge before his ap- 
pointment as to how he will decide each question that may arise 
upon points allecting the Itepublican i)arly. 

Now, my friends, suppose this scheme was practical, I ask you 
what confidence you would have in a Court thus constituted, — a 
Court c<»niposed of |)artis.in Judges, appointed on political grounds, 
selected with a view to the decision of (piestions in a particular 
wav, and ple(lgcd in rcg.-ird to a (lrri>i(>n before tlie argument, 
and without reference to the peculiar stale of the facts. Would 
such a Court command the respect of the country? If the Uepub- 
lican party cannot trust Democratic Juflges, how can llicy I'x- 
peet us to trust Republican Judges, when they have liccii 
selected in advance for the purpose of i)acking a decision in Ihc 
event of a case arising? M\' f«'llow-citi/i'ns, wlu'uever partisan 
politics shall be c:irricd on to th«' bench; whcncxfr the Judges shall 
be arraigned upon the slump. an<l their jinlicial conduct reviewed 
in town UM'ctings and caucus«'s; whenever the imicpcndence and in- 
tegrity of the judiciary shall be tamiiere<| with to tlie extent of 
n-ndering Ihem partial, blind, an<l suppliant tools, what seciuity 
will you have for your i i;,'lits ami your liberties? I therefore take 
issue with Mr. Lincoln directly in regard to this warfare upon the 
Supreme Court of the United states. I accept the decision of that 



bl(X)Min(;T()N. ili>.. .iit.y ic. is-is. 109 

Court afs it was pronounced. Whatever my individual opinions may 
be, I, as a good citizen, am bound by the laws of the land, as the 
Legislature makes them, as the Court expounds them, and as the 
executive officers administer them. I am bound by our Constitu- 
tion as our fathers made it, and as it is our duty to support it. I 
am bound as a good citizen, to sustain the constituted authorities, 
and to resist, discourage, and beat down, by all lawful and peace- 
ful means, all attempts at exciting mobs, or violence, or any other 
revolutionary proceedings against the Constitution and the consti- 
tuted authorities of the country. 

SLAVEKY I\ THE TERRITORIES. 

Mr. Lincoln is alarmed for fear that, under the Dred Scott de- 
cision, slavery will go into all the Territories of the United States. 
All I have to say is that, with or without that decision, slavery will 
go just where the people want it, and not one inch further. You 
have had experience upon that subject in the case of Kansas. You 
have been told by the Republican party that, from 1854, when the 
Kansas-Nebraska bill passed, down to last winter, that slavery was 
sustained and supported in Kansas by the laws of what they called a 
" bogus ■' Legislature. And how many slaves were there in the 
Territory at the end of last winter ? Not as many at the end of 
that period as there were on the day the Kansas-Nebraska I)ill 
passed. There was quite a number of slaves in Kansas, taken there 
under the Missouri Compromise, and in spite of it, before the Kan- 
sas-Nebra.ska bill passed; and now it is asserted that there are not 
as many there as there were before the passage of the bill, notwith- 
standing that they had local laws sustaining and encouraging it, 
enacted, as the Republicans say, by a "bogus" Legislature, im- 
posed upon Kansas by an invasion from Missouri. "Why has not 
slavery obtained a foothold in Kansas under these circumstances ? 
Simply because there was a majority of her people opposed to 
slavery, and every slaveholder knew that if he took his slaves 
there, the moment that majority got possession of the ballot-boxes, 
and a fair election was held, that moment slavery would be 
abolished, and he would lose them. For that reason, such owners 
as took their slaves there, brought them back to Missouri, fearing 
that if they remained there tliey would be emancipated. 

Thus you see that under the principle of popular sovereignty, 
slavery has been kept out of Kansas, notwithstanding the fact that 
for the first three years they had a Legislature in that Territory 



11(1 'SPEE<'H OF lM>r(;!.AS. 

favorable to it. I ttll you, my friends, it is imjwssihle under our 
institutions to force shivery on an unwilling people. If this princi- 
ple of jKipular soven'igTity asserted in the Nebraska bill 1k» fairly 
carrietl t»ut, by letting the jK'ople decide the question for them- 
selves, by a fair vote, at a fair election, and with honest returns, 
slaver}- will never exist one day, or one hour, in any Territory 
against the unfriendly legislation of an unfriendly |)eople. I care 
not how the Dred Scott decision may have settled the abstract 
(juestion so far as the practical result is conceme«l: for, to use 
the language of an eminent Southern Senator on this verj' ques- 
tion: — 

"I do not care a fi? which way the decision sh:\\\ ho, for it is of no 
particular consequence; slavi-ry cannot exist a day or an hour, in any 
Territory or State, unless it has affirmative laws sustaining; and support- 
ing it. furnishinfT police regulations and remedies: and an omission to 
furnish them would be as fatal as a constitutional prohibition. Without 
affirmative legislation in its favor, slavery could not fxist any longer than 
a n*'W-born infant could survive undtT the heat of the sun. on a barren 
rock, without protection. It would wilt and die for the want of support." 

Hence, if the people of a Territory want slavery, they will en- 
courage it by passing affirmative laws, and the necessary police 
regulations, patrol laws, and slave code; if they do not want it, 
they will withhold that legislation, and by withholding it slavery is 
as dead as if it was prohibited by a constitutional prohibition, es- 
ficcially if, in addition, their legislation is unfriendly, as it would 
\}Q if they wen- opi)osed to it. Tiiey could pass such local laws and 
|x>lice regulations as would drive slaver}- out in one day. or one 
hour, if they were opjM)sed to it: and therefore, SO far as the ques- 
tion of slavery in the Territories is concerned, so far as the principle 
«»f jMtpular HAt-reiuiity is eonctnud. in its practical operation, it 
matters not how the Dred Scott case may be decided with reference 
to the Territories. My own opinion on tliat law point is well known. 
It is shown l<y my votes and speedu-s in Tongn-ss. But l»e it 
as it may. the question was an abstract question, inviting no 
practical results; a:ul whether slaver}- shall exist or shall not exist 
in any ."^tatt- or Territory will de|>end uy)on whether the people arc for 
or again.-t it; and whichever way they shall decide it in any Terri- 
t<»rv or in :iny State, will )w entirely satisfactory to lue. 

Hut I mu.st now U'stow a few wonls uix>n Mr. Lincoln s main 
objection to the Dntl Scott <lecision. He is not going to submit 
to it. N«»t llmt be is going to make war ujwn it with force of 



BLOOM INTiTOX, II. I.., .iCLV lO. is.-.s. 



11 



arms. But he is going to appeal and reverse it in some way ; h,. 
canuot tell u.s how. I icckou not by a Avril of error. bee:ui.su 1 do 
not know where he would prosecute that, except before an Abolition 
Society. And when he appeals, he does not exactly tell us to whom 
he will appeal, except it be the Kepul)lic:in party; aiul 1 have yet 
to learn that the llei)ublican party, under the Constitution, has judi- 
cial powers: but he is going to appeal from it and reverse it, either 
by an Act of Congress, or by turnino- out the Judges, or in some other 
way. And why? Because he says that that decision deprives the 
negro of the benefits of that clause of the Constitution of the United 
States which entitles the citizens of each State to all the privileges 
and immunities of citizens of the several States. 

Well, it is very true that the decision does have that effect. By 
deciding that a negro is not a citizen, of course it denies to him the 
rlghts and privileges awarded to citizens of the United States. It 
is this that Mr. Lincoln will not submit to. Why? For the pal- 
pable reason that he wishes to confer upon the negro all the rio-hts, 
privileges, and immunities of citizens of the several States. Twill 
not quarrel with Mr. Lincoln for his views on that subject. I have 
no doubt he is conscientious in them. I have not the slightest idea 
but that he conscientiously believes that a negro ought to enjoy and 
exercise all the rights and privileges given to white men; but I do 
not agree with him, and hence I cannot concur with him. 

MEANING OF THE DECLARATION. 

I believe that this Government of ours was founded on the white 
basis. I believe that it was established by white men, by men of 
European birth, or descended of PJuropean races, for the benefit of 
white men and their posterity in all time to come. I do not believe 
that it was the design or intention of the signers of the Declaration 
of Independence or the framers of the Constitution to include neg- 
roes, Lidiaus, or other inferior races, with white men, as citizens. 
Our fathers had at that day seen the evil consequences of conferring 
civil and political rights upon the Indian and negro in the Spanish 
and French colonies on the American continent and the adjacent 
islands. In Mexico, in Central America, in South America and in 
the West India Islands, where the Indian, the negro, and men of all 
colors and all races are put on an equality by law, the effect of 
political amalgamation can be seen. Ask any of those gallant 
young men in your own county, who went to Mexico to fight the 
battles of their country, in what friend Lincoln considers an unjust 



J ,o SPKEC'H ^tl' Doltil.AS. 

aiul unholv war, and lu-ar wlial Ih.-y will tell vou in iv-anl to llie 
auialpumition of races in tiuil c-ountry. Anial^^amation tlu-n', first 
lM)lilieal, then social, luis led to demoralization and detiradalion, 
until it has reduced that people luL.w the point of capacity for self- 
government. Our fathers knew what the etfect of it would he, and 
from the time they planti-d foot on the American continent, not 
only those who laniled at Jam»'stown. hut at Plymouth Rock and all 
other points on the coast, they pursued the policy of confuiing civil 
ami political rights to the white race, and e.c 1 i ling the negro In all 

cases. 

Still, Mr. Lincoln conscientiously believes that it is his duly to 
advocate negro citizenshii). lie wants to give the negro the privi- 
lege of citizenship, lie ([uotes scripture again, and says: " As your 
Father in heaven is perfect, be ye also perfect." And he applies 
that scriptural (piotation to all classes; not that he expects us all to 
be as perfect as our Master, but as nearly perfect as possil)le. In 
other words, he is willing to give the negro an ecpiality under the 
law, in order that he may approach as near perfection, or an equal- 
ity with the white man, as possible. To this same end he quotes 
tlie Declaration of Independence in these words: "We hold these 
truths to be self-evident, that all men were created eciual, and 
endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights among 
which are fife, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;" and goes on 
to argue that the negro was inchided, or intended to be included, in 
that Declaration, by the signers of the paper. He says that, by the 
Declaration of Independence, therefore, all kinds of men, negroes 
iuchnled, were created equal and endowe.l by their Creator with 
certain inalienable rights, and, further, that the riirht of the negro 
to be on an e(|uality with the white man is a divine right, conferred 
by the Almighty, and rendered inalienable ai-conling to the Declara- 
tion of In.lependence. Hence n.) human law or constitution can 
deprive the negro of that equality witii I lie wUit.- man to which he is 
entitled by the .livine law 1 A voire; ••Higher law. J Ve.s. higher 

law. 

Now. I do not question Mr. Lincoln's sincerity on this point. 
He l..-lieves that the negro, by the divine law, is created the e(pial 
.,f the white man, and that no human law can deprive iiim of that 
e<|uality, thus secured; and he contends that the negro ought, there- 
fore, to have all the rights aiul privileges of eiti/.eiiship on an eipial- 
ity with the white man. In onler t.. ae.omplish this, the lirst thing 
lliat would have to be done in tlii.s State would Ik- to I.K.t out of our 



P.LOOMIXnTOX. ILL.. .ITLV 10, IS.IS. ]]3 

State Constitution thut clause whieli prohibits negroes from coining 
into this State and making it an African colony, and permit them to 
come and spread over these charming prairies until in midday they 
shall look black as night. When our friend Lincoln gets all his 
colored brethren around him here, he will then raise them to per- 
fection as fast as possible, and place them on an equality with' the 
white man, first removing all legal restrictions, ])ecause they are our 
equals by divine law, and there should be no such restrictions. 

He wants them to vote. I am opposed to it. If they had a 
vote, I reckon they would all vote for him in preference to me, 
entertaining the views I do. But that matters not. The position 
he has taken on this question not only presents him as claiming for 
them the right to vote, but their right, under the divine law and the 
Declaration of Independence, to be elected to office, to become 
members of the Legislature, to go to Congress, to become Govern- 
ors, or United States Senators, or Judges of the Supreme Court; 
and I suppose that when they control that court they will probably 
reverse the Dred Scott decision. He is going to bring negroes here, 
and give them the right of citizenship, the right of voting, and the 
right of holding office and sitting on juries; and what else? Why, 
he would permit them to marry, would he not? And if he gives 
them that right, I suppose he will let them marry whom they please, 
provided they marry their equals. If the divine law declares that 
the white man is the equal of the negro woman, that they are on a 
perfect equality, I suppose he admits the right of the negro woman 
to marry the white man. In other words, his doctrine that the 
negro, by divine law, is placed on a perfect equality with the white 
man, and that that equality is recognized by the Declaration of 
Independence, leads him necessarily to establish negro equality 
under the law; Ijut whether even then they would be so in fact 
would depend upon the degree of virtue and intelligence they pos- 
sessed, and certain other qualities that are matters of taste rather 
than of law. I do not understand Mr. Lincoln as saying that he 
expects to make them our equals socially, or by intelligence, nor in 
fact as citizens, but that he wishes to make them our equals under 
the law, and then say to themi, '' as your Master in heaven is per- 
fect, be ye also perfect." 

Well, I confess to you, my fellow-citizens, that I am utterly 
opposed to that system of Abolition philosophy. I do not believe 
that the signers of the Declaration of Independence had any refer- 
ence to negroes when they used the expression that all men were 
8' 



I j4 SPKKClI OF 1 »()!'(; LAS. 

created equal, or that they had any reference to the Chinese or 
Coolies, the Indians, the Japanese, or any other inferior race. They 
were speaking of the white race, the European race on this conti- 
nent, and their descendants, and emigrants who should come here. 
They were speaking only of the white race, and never dreamed that 
their language would be construed to include the negro. 

Am. I ii.>« for tlu- i\ i(U'iici' of tlial f:i(l. Al the tinu' Iht- Dec-lara- 
lion of Iiulopcnaeuce was put forth, dechiriug the ecjuality of all 
luiMi. evi-ry one of the thirti-en colonies was a slaveholding colony, 
anil every man who si-rned that Deelaratlon represented a shivehold- 
ing constituency. Did they intend, when they put their si;^r„:itnres to 
that instrument, to declare that tlieir own slaves were on an eciuality 
with them; that they were made their equals by divine law. and that 
any human law reducing them lo an inferior position was void, as l.eiuir 
in "violation of divine law? Was that the meaning of the signers of 
tlie Declaration of Independence? Did JetTersou and Henry and 
LtH', — did any of the signers of that instrument, or all of them, on 
the'dav they signed it, give their slaves freedom? History records 
that they did not. Did they go further, and put the negro on an 
e(iuality with the white man throughout the country? They did not. 

And yet if they had understood that declaration as including the 
negro, which Mr. Lincoln holds they did, they would have l>een 
hound, as conscientious men, to have restored the negro to that 
i'(iuality which he thinks the Almighty intended they should occupy 
with the white man. They did not do it. Slavery was abolishe.l 
in oidy one State before the adoption of the Constitution in ITS'.t, 
and then in otliers gradually, down to the time this Abolition agita- 
tion began ; and it has not l>een abolished in one since. The history 
<.r the country shows that neither the signers of the Declaration, 
iK.i- tlic framers of the (.'oustitiition, ever supposed it p()ssil)le that 
their language would be u.se<l in an attempt to make this nation a 
mi\c.l nation of Indians, negroes, whites, and moiignls. 1 repeat, 
that our whole history confirms the proposition, that from the earli- 
est settlement of the colonies down to the Declaration of Independ- 
ence and the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, our 
fathers proceeded on the while basis, making the white people the 
governing race. I>nt conceding to the Indian and negro, and all in- 
ferior races, all the rights and all llie privileges tiu-yconld enjoy 
consistent witli tin- safety of the s«»ciety in which they livt-d 

That is my opinion now. I told you that humanity, pliilan- 
iLropy, justice, and sound policy recpiired that we slutuld give the 



I5L()()MI.\;iT()N, ILL.. .iLLV Ki. isr.s. jj- 

negro every right, every privilege, every immunity, consistent with 
the safety and welfare of the State. The question then naturaliy 
arises, What are those rights and privileges, and What i.s the nature 
and extent of them? My answer is, that that is a question whieh 
each State and each Territory must decide for itself. We have de- 
cided that question. AA'c have said that in this State the iie<rro 
shall not be a slave, but that he shall enjoy no political ri-hts • that 
negro equality shall not exist. I am content with that position 
My friend Lincoln is not. He thinks that our policy and our laws 
on that subject are contrary to the Declaration of In.lependence 
He thinks that the Almighty made the negro his equal and his 
brotner. For my part, I do not consider the negro any kin to me 
nor to any other white man; but I would still carry my humanity 
and my philanthropy to the extent of giving him every privilege and 
every immunity that he could enjoy, consistent with our own^od. 
We in Illinois have the right to decide upon that question for our- 
selves, and we are bound to allow every other State to do the same 
Maine allows the negro to vote on an equality with the white man. 
1 do not quarrel with our friends in Maine for that. If they think 
It wise and proper in Maine to put the negro on an equality with the 
while man, and allow him to go to the polls and negative the vote 
of a white man, it is their business, and not mine. On the other 
band, New York permits a negro to vote, provided he owns $250 
worth of property. New York thinks that a negro ought to be per- 
mitted to vote, provided he is rich, but not otherwise. They allow 
the aristocratic negro to vote there. I never saw the wisdom, the 
propriety, or the justice, of that decision on the part of New York, 
and yet it never occurred to me that I had a right to find fault with 
that State. It is her business ; she is a sovereign State, and has a 
right to do as she pleases ; and if she will take care of her own 
negroes, making such regulations concerning them as suit her, and 
let us alone, I will mind my busmess, and not interfere with' her. 
In Kentucky they will not give a negro any political or any civil 
rights. I shall not argue the question whether Kentucky in so do- 
ing has decided right or wrong, wisely or unwisely. It 'is a ques- 
tion for Kentucky to decide for herself. I believe that the 
Kentuckians have consciences as well as ourselves ; they have as 
keen a perception of their religious, moral, and social duties as we 
bave ; :ind I am willing that they shall decide this slavery question 
for themselves, and be accountable to their God for their action. It 
is not for me to arraign them for what they do. I will not judce 



11,; SPEECH Ol' 1H)1(JLAS. 

tlicm, K'sl 1 .sluill J)t' jialgeil Lit Kintucky miud her own business 
and takf curt- of Ikt negroes, ami we atteml to our own affairs and 
take eari- of our nejrroes, and we will Ix' the U'st of friends ; but if 
Kentucky attempts to interfere with us. or we with her. there will be 
-trife, there will Ix' discord, there will Ije relentless hatred, there 
v.ill 1h' i-vervthing but fraternal feeling and brotherly love. 

SENDING MISSILES OVER. 

•it IS iini necessary that you should enter Kentucky and inter- 
fere in that State." to use the language of Mr. Lincoln. It is just 
as offensive to interfere from this State, or send your missiles over 
then'. 1 care not whether an enemy, if he is going to assault us. 
shall actually come into our State, or come along the line, and throw 
his lH)mbshells over to exploile in our midst. Suppose England 
should plant a battery on the Canadian side of the Niagara Kiver, 
opiwsite Buffalo, and tlirow bombshells over, which would explode 
in Main Street, in that city, and destrtiy the buildings; and that, 
when we protested, she would say, in the language of Mr. Lincoln, 
that she never dreamed of coming into the United States to inter- 
fere with us, and that she was just throwing her l>ombs over the 
line from her own side, which she had a right to do. Would that 
explanation satisfy us? Sp it is with Mr. Lincoln. He is not go- 
ing into Kentucky, but he will plant his batteries on this side of the 
Ohio, where he is safe and secure for a retreat, and will throw his 
bombshells — his Abolition documents — over the river, and will 
carry on a iK>litical warfare, and get up strife between the North 
and the .^outh, until he elects a sectional President ; reduces the 
S4nith to the condition of dependent colonies ; raises the negro to an 
ecpiality ; and forces the South to submit to the doctrine that a 
house divided against itself cannot stand ; that the Union divided 
into half Slave States and half Free, cannot endure; that they must 
all Ix' Slave or they must all be Free ; and that as we in the North 
are in llie majority, we will not permit them to be all Slave, and 
therefore they in the South must consent to the States all being Vrvv. 
Now, fellow-citi/.ens. I submit t« you whether these doctrines 
are c<)nsistent with the peace and harmony of this Union ? I sub- 
mit to you whether they are cimsistent with our duties as citizens 
of a comuKKi Confederacy ; whether they are consistent with the 
principles which ••ughl to govern brethren of the same family? I 
n-c<.gni/.c all the p«-«>ple of thece States, North and South, East and 
West, vW\ or new, Atlantic or I'acific, as our brethren, flesh of our 



BLCK^MIXGTOX. ILL., JULY IC. 1S.5S. n; 

flesh, and I will do no act unto them that I would not he willincr 
they should do unto us. I would apply the same Christian rule to 
the States of this Union that we are taught toapply to individuals,— 
■ Do unto others as you would have others do unto you : " and this 
would secure peace. Why should this slaven- agitation be kept up? 
Does it J>enefit the white man or the slave? AVho does it benefit, 
except the Republican politicians, who use it as their hobby to ride 
into office? Why. I repeat, should it be continued? Why cannot 
we be content to administer this Government as it was m*ade,_a 
confederacy of sovereign and independent Slates? Let us recognize 
the sovereignty and independence of each State, refrain from inter- 
fering with the domestic institutions and regulations of other States, 
permit the Territories and new States to decide their institutions for 
themselves, as we did when we were in their condition ; blot out 
these lines of North and South, and resort back to these lines of 
State lx)undaries which the Constitution has marked out and en- 
graved upon the face of the countri- ; have no other dividing lines 
but these, and we will te one united, harmonious people, with fra- 
ternal feelings, and no discord or dissension. 

These are my views, and these are the principles to which I 
have devoted all my energies since 1850, when I acted side by side 
with the immortal Clay and the god-like Webster in that memorable 
struggle, in which Whigs and Democrats united upon a common 
platform of patriotism and the Constitution, throwing aside partisan 
feelings in order to restore peace and harmony to a distracted coun- 
try. And when I stood beside the death-bed of Mr. Clay, and heard 
him refer, with feelings and emotions of the deepest solicitude, to 
the welfare of the country-, and saw that he looked uix)n the prin- 
ciple embo<:lied in the great Compromise measures of 1850, the prin- 
ciple of the Nebraska bill, the doctrine of leaving each State and 
Territory free to decide its institutions for itself, as the only means 
by which the peace of the country- could Ije presened and the Union 
perpetuated.— I pledged him, on that death-bed of his, that so 
long as I lived, my energies should be devoted to the vindication of 
that principle, and of his fame as connected with it. I gave the 
same pledge to the great exix>imder of the Constitution, he who has 
been called the -'god-like Webster." I looked up to Clay and him 
as a son would to a father, and I call upon the people of Illinois, 
and the people of the whole Union, to bear testimony that never 
since the sod has been laid upon the graves of these eminent states- 
men have I failed, an any occasion, to vindicate the principle with 



\ 1 j; SPEECH OF IKX'GLAS, 

whirli tlu' hist great frowning acts of their lives were i<lentilieil. or 
to vintUcate their names whenever they have been assailed, and now 
niN life and energy are devoted to this great work as the means of 
preserviiHg tjjis I'nion. 

This I'nion ean only l»e preserved by maintaining the fraternal 
feeling between the North and the Sonth, the East and the West. 
If that g«MHl feeling can be preserved, the I'nion will be as per- 
|K-tual as the fame of its great founders. It can be maintained by 
preserving the sovereignty of the States, the right of each State and 
each Territory- to settle its domestic concerns for itself, and the 
dutv of each to refrain from interfering with the other in any of its 
local or domestic institutions. Let that l>e done, and the Union 
will be pei^etual; let that be done, and this Republic, which began 
with thirteen States, and which now numbers thirty-two, which, 
when it began, only extended from the Atlantic to the Mississippi, 
but now reaches to the Pacific, may yet expand. North and South, 
until it covers the whole Continent, and becomes one vast ocean- 
bound confederacy. Then, my friends, the path of duty, of honor, 
of patriotism, is plain. There are a few simple principles to be 
preserved. Bear in mind the dividing line between SUite rights and 
Federal authority; let us maintain the great principles of sover- 
eignty, of State rights, and of the Federal Union as the Constitu- 
tion has made it, and this Republic will endure forever. 

I thank you kindly for the patience with which you have 
listened to me. 1 fear I have wearied you. I have a heavy 
day's work before me to-moiTow. I have several speeches to make. 
.My friends, in whose hands I am, are taxing me beyond human en- 
tlurance;but I shall take the helm and control them hereafter. I 
am i)rofoundly grateful to the people of McLean for the reception 
they have given me, and the kimlness with which they have listened 
to me. I nMneraber when I first came among you here, twenty-five 
vears ago, that I was prosecuting attorney in this district, and that 
my earliest elforts were maile here, wluii my deficiencies were too 
apparent, I am afraid, to be concealed from any one. 1 remenil>er 
the courtesy and kindness with which 1 was uniformly treated by 
ytm all; and whenever I can recognise the fare of one of your old 
citizens, it is like meeting an old an«l cherished friend. I come 
among you with a heart filled with gratitude for past favors. I 
have iHH-n wiih you but little for the past few yeare. on account of 
my ofli< ial duties. I intentl t«) vi^it you again before the cam- 
paign \h over. 1 wi>,h to speak to your whole people. I wish them 



SPRIX(;FIELI). ill., JULY 16. 1858. no 

to pass judgment upon the correctness of my course, and the sound- 
ness of the principles which 1 have proclaimed. 

If you do not approve my principles, I cannot ask your support. 
If you believe that the election of Mr. Lincoln would contribute 
more to preserve the harmony of the country, to perpetuate the 
Union, and more to the prosperity and the honor and glory of the 
State, then it is your duty to give him the preference. If, on the 
contrary, you believe that I have been faithful to my trust, and 
that by sustaining me you will give greater strength and efficiency 
to the principles which I have expounded, I shall then be grateful 
for your support. I renew my profound thanks for your attention. 



SPEECH OF SENATOR DOUGLAS. 

Delivered July 17, 1S5S, at Springfield, III. (Mr. Lincoln was not present.) 

Mr. Chairman and Fellow-Citizens of Springfield and old 
Sangamon: My heart is filled with emotions at the allusions which 
have been so happily and so kindly made in the welcome just ex- 
tended to me, — a welcome so numerous and so enthusiastic, bringing 
me to my home among my old friends, that language cannot ex- 
press my gratitude. I do feel at home whenever I return to old 
Sangamon and receive those kind and friendly greetings which have 
never failed to meet me when I have come among 3'ou; but never be- 
fore have I had such occasion to be grateful and to be proud of the 
manner of the reception as on the present. While I am willing, sir, 
to attribute a part of this demonstration to those kind and friendly 
personal relations to which you have referred, I cannot conceal from 
myself that the controlling and pervading element in this great mass 
of human beings is devotion to that principle of self-government to 
which so many years of my life have been devoted ; and rejoice more 
in considering it an approval of my support of a cardinal principle 
than I would if I could appropriate it to myself as a personal com- 
pliment. 

You but speak rightly when 3'ou assert that during the last 
session of Congress there was an attempt to violate one of the 



lliO SPEECH OF DorciLAS. 

fmulaim'ntal iiriiu-ipU'S uimhi wliiili our free institutions rest. Tho 
attempt to force the Leoouipton Constitution uik>u tlie people of 
Kansas against their will, would have been, if successful, subversive 
«»f the great fundamental principles upon which all our institutions 
rest. If tlu-re is any one principle more sacred and more vital to 
the existenie of a free government than all others, it is the right of 
the people to form and ratify the Constitution under which they are 
to live. It is the cornerstone of the temple of lil)erty; it is the 
foundation upon which the whole structure rests; and whenever it 
can l)e successfully cvadcil. self-government has received a vital 
stab. I deemed it my duty, as a citizen and as a representative of 
the State of Illinois, to resist, with all my energies and with what- 
ever of ability I could command, the consummation of that effort to 
force a constitution upon an unwilling people. 

I am aware that other ([uestious have been connected, or at- 
tempted to be connected, with that gretit struggle; but they were 
mere collateral questions, not affecting the main point. My oppo- 
sition to the Lecomptou Constitution rested solely upon the fact 
that it was not the act and deed of that people, and that it did not 
emliody their will. I did not object to it upon the ground of the 
slavery clause contained in it. I sluniltl have resisted it with the 
same energy and determination even it it had been a Free State in- 
stead of a slave-holding State; and as an evidence of this fact I 
wish you to bear in mind that my speech against the Lecomptou 
Act was made on the 'Jth day of December, nearly two weeks before 
the vote was taken on the acceptance or rejection of the slavery 
clause. I did not then know, I could not have known, whether the 
slavery clause would be accepted or rejected; the general impression 
was that it would be rejected; and in my speech I assumed that im- 
l)ressi«)n to be true; that probably it would be voted down; and then 
I said to the United States Senate, as I now i»roclaim to yon, my 
constituents, that j'ou have no more right to force a Free Stati- upon 
an unwilling people than you have to force a Slave State upon tlu-m 
against their will. Vt>ii have no right to force either a good or a 
bad thing up(»n a people who do not choose to receive it. And 
then, again, the highest privilege of our people is to determine for 
themselves what kind of institutions are good and what kind of 
in.stltutions an- bad; and it may be true that the same pe(tple, 
situateil in a diirerent latitude and dilferent climate, and with dif- 
erent productions and diirennl interests, might decide the same 
question one way in the Norlli and another way in the South, in 



SPRIXGFIELD, ILL., JULY 17, 1858. l2l 

order to adapt (l.eir institutions to the waut.s and wishes of the 
people to be attected Iiy tlieni. 

You all are familiar with the Leeompton strugak.^ and I will 
oecui.y no more time upon the subject, excei^ to remark that when 
we drove the enemies of the principle of popular sovereignty from 
the etiort to force the Leeompton Constitution upon the people of 
Kansas, and when we compelled them to abandon the attempt -nu] 
to refer that Constitution to that people for acceptance or rejection 
we obtamed a concession of the principle for which I had contended 
throughout the struggle. When I saw that the principle was con- 
ceded, and that the Constitution was not to be forced on Kansas 
agamst the wishes of the people, I felt anxious to give the proposi- 
tion my support; but when I examined it, I found that the mode of 
reference to the people and the form of submission, upon which the 
vote was taken, was so objectionable as to make it unfair an.l un- 
just. 

Sir, it is an axiom with me that in every free government an un- 
fair election is no election at all. Every election should be free 
should be fair, with the same privileges and the same inducements 
for a negative as for an afHrmative vote. The objection to what is 
called the " English" proposition, by which the Leeompton Consti- 
tution was referred back to the people of Kansas, was this: that if 
the people chose to accept the Leeompton Constitution they could 
come in with only 35,000 inhabitants; while if they determined to 
reject it in order to form another more in accordance with their 
wishes and sentiments, they were compelled to stay out until they 
should have 93,420 inhabitants. In other words, it was making a 
distinction and discrimination between Free States and Slave States 
under the Federal Constitution. I deny the justice, I deny the 
right, of any distinction or discrimination between the States ^orth 
and South, Free or Slave. Equality among the States is a fund.:- 
mental principle of this Government. Hence, while I will never 
consent to the passage of a law that a Slave State may come in witli 
35,000, while a Free State shall not come in unless it have 93,000, 
on the other hand, I shall not consent to admit a Free State with a 
population of 35,000, and require 93,000, in a slaveholding State. 
My principle is to recognize each State of the Union as independ- 
ent, sovereign, and equal in its sovereignty. I will apply that prin- 
ciple, not only to the original thirteen States, but to the States 
which have since l)een brought into the Union, and also to every 
State that shall hereafter be received, ' ' as long as water shall run, 



122 S;rF.K( H iH' Dorci.AS. 

ami t;n»ss grow, I'or lli«'Sf reasons I IVlt compt'lk-il, l»y a sense of 
tlutv, l»y u c'ouviction of printiple, to record luy vote against wliat 
is ealUnl the Kng)ish bill; but yet the bill bceanie a law, anil under 
that law an eleetion has been ordered to be la-Id on the first Mon- 
day ill August, f<»r the purpose of determining the (juestion of the 
:ui-eptanee or rejeeti;)n of the propositi<jn submitted by Congress. 

I have no hesitation in saying to y<»u, as the chairman of your 
tommittee has justly said in his address, that whatever the decision 
»»f the people of Kansas may be at that election, it must be final and 
conclusive of the whole subject; for if at that election a majority of 
the people of Kansas shall vole f>r the acceptance of the Con- 
gressional proi)osition, Kansas from tiiat moment becomes a. State 
of the I'nlou, the law admitting her becomes irrepealable, and thus 
the controvei-sy terminates forever; if, on the other hand, the peo- 
ple of Kansas shall vole down that proposition, as it is now gener- 
ally admitted they will, by a large majority, then from that instant 
the Lecompton Constitution is dntil^ — dead beyond the power of 
resurrection: and thus the controversy terminates. And when the 
monster shall die, I shall be willing, and trust that all of j'ou 
will be willing to accpiiesce in the death of the J^ecompton Constitu- 
tion. The controversy may now l)e considered as terminated, for in 
three wci'ks from now it will be linally settled, and all the ill-feeling, 
all the embittered feeling whi<-h grew out of it shall cease, unless an 
attempt should be made in the future to repeal the same outrage 
n\Hyn pojjular rights. 

\V.\RNIN(i .\NI) EXAMPLE. 

I need not tell you that my past course is a sufllcient guarantee 
that if till' occasion shall ever ari.se again while I occupy a seat in 
the T'nited States Senate, you will find me carrying out the same 
principle that 1 have this winter, with all the energy and all the 
|H)wer I may be able to command. 1 have the gratilication of say- 
ing to you that I do not believe that that controversy will ever arise 
again: first, because the fate of bccuniptoil is a irnnii'in/ to the j)eo- 
ple of every 'rcrritury and of every Slate to be <'autitius liow llic 
example is repcale<l; and, secondly, because the J'resideiit of the 
Cniled States, in his annual mes.sage, has said that he trusts the 
examph* in the Minnesota case, 'wherein Congress passed a law, 
called an Knabling Act, recjuiring the Constitution to be submitted 
to the people for acceptance or rejection, will be followid in all fut- 
ure cuHCM. [Voicjv " 'J'hat was right.] 1 agree witii you that it was 



SPRINGFIELD, ILL., JULY 17, 1858. 123 

right. I said so on Uw day after the message was delivered, in my 
speech in the Senate on tlie Lecompton Constitution, and ] have fre- 
quently in the debate tendered to tiie President and his fi'iends, ten- 
dered to the Lecomptonites, my vohmtary pU'dge, tiiat if he will stand 
by that recommendation, and tliey will stand by it, that they will 
find me working hand in hand with them in the etl'oi-t to carry it out. 
Ah we have to do, therefore, is to adhere firmly in the future, as 
we have done in the past, to the principle contained in the recom- 
mendation of the President in his annual message, that the example 
in the Minnesota case shall be carried out in all future cases of the 
admission of Territories into the Union as States. Let that be 
done, and the principle of popular sovereignty will be maintained 
m all of its vigor and all of its integrity. 

I rejoice to know that Illinois stands prominently and proudly 
forward among the States which first took their position firmly and 
immovably upon this principle of popular sovereignty, applied to 
tne Territories as well as to the States. You all recollect when, in 
ISoO, the peace of the country was disturbed in consequence of 'the 
agitation of the shivery question, and the effort to force the VVilmot 
Proviso upon all the Territories, that it required all the talent and 
all the energy, all the wisdom, all the patriotism, of a Clay and a 
Webster, united with other great party leaders, to devise a system 
of measures by which peace and harmony could be restored to our 
distracted country. Those compromise measures eventually passed 
and were recorded on the statute book, not only as the settlement of 
the then existing difficulties, i)ut as furnishing a rule of action 
which should prevent in all future time the recurrence of like evils 
If they were firmly and fairly carried out. Those compromise 
measures rested, as I said in my speech at Chicago on my return 
home that year, upon the principle that every people ought to have 
the right to form and regulate their own domestic institutions in 
their own way. subject only to the Constitution. They were 
founded upon the principle that while every State possessed that 
right under the Constitution, that the same right ought to l)e ex- 
tended to and exercised by the people of the Territories. 

When the Illinois Legislature assembled, a few months after the 
adoption of these measures, the first thing the members did was to 
review their action upon this slavery agitation, and to correct the 
errors into which their predecessors had fallen. You remember that 
their first act was to repeal the Wilmot Proviso instructions to our 
United States Senators, which had been previously passed, and in 



124 SPKKiH «>F l)()L'(JLAS. 

lii'U I)! tht-m tt) ivford anothiT resolution upon the journal, with 
which you must all Iil- familiar, -- u rt'solution brought forward l»y 
Mr. Ninian K«lwarils, and adopttMl Iiy the House of Kepresentatives 
l»y a vote of {\l in the allinuative to 4 in the negative. That reso- 
lution I can ipiote to you in almost its precise language. It de- 
clare«i that the great principle of self-government was the l)irthrigl»t 
of freemen, was the gift of Heaven, was achieved by the Mood of 
our revolutionary fathers, and must lie continued and carried out in 
the organization of all the Territories and the admission of all new 
States. That became the Illinois platform by the united voices of 
tin- |)emocratic party and of the Whig party in IS.'il ; all the \Vhigs 
and all the Hemocrats in the iiCgislature uniting in an allirmative 
vote upon it, and there being only four votes in the negative, — of 
Abolitionists, of course. 

That resoluti<»n stands upon tin- journal of your Ijcgislature to 
this day and hour unrepealed, as a standing, living, perpetual in- 
struction to the Senators from Illinois in all time to come to t-arry 
out that iirim-iple of self-government, and allow no limitation upon 
it in the organization of any Territories or the admission of an}' new 
States. In 1854, when it became my duty as the chairman of tlu- 
committee (m Territories to bring forwaid a l)ill for the organization 
of Kansas and Nebraska, I incorporated that principle in it. and 
Congress passed it, thus canying the principle into practical effect. 
I will not recur to the scenes which took j)lace all over the country 
in lHr)4, when that Nebraska bill passed. I could then travel from 
Hoston to Chicago l)y the light of my own elligies, in conseciucnce 
of having stood up for it. I leave it to you to say how I met that 
storm, and whetlu'r 1 (juailed under it: whether I did not "face the 
music," justify the principle, and pledge my life to carry it out. 

A friend here reminds me. to(», tliat when making speeches 
then, justifying the Neltraska l»ill and llu- great principle of self- 
governmcid, I predicted that in le.ss than live years yon would liax*- 
to get out a se.irch-warrant to lind an anti Nebraska man. Well. 
I believj' I dii| make that preilict ion. I did not claim the power of 
a prophet, but it oeciiricd to me that among a free people, and an 
honest people, and an intclligi'ut p«'ople. live yt-ars was long 
enough for them to come to an understanding that the great prin- 
ciple of Helf-governmt lit was right, not only in the States, but in 
the Territorii'H. 1 rejoiced this year to see my prediction, in that 
n-spect, carrie»l out and fullllled by the unaidmous vote, in «»ne 
r«»rni or another, of both Houses of ("ongn'ss. 



SPRINGFIELD, ILL., .ILLY 17, 1858. 125 

If yoii will remember that pending this Lecompton controvers}- 
tluit gulhuit old Roman, Kentucky's favorite son, the worthy suees- 
sor of the immortal Clay, — I allude, as you know, to the gallant 
John J. Crittenden, — brought forward a l)ill, now known as the 
Crittenden-Montgomery bill, in which it was proposed that the 
Lecompton Constitution should Ije referred back to the people of 
Kansas, tobe decided for or against it, at a fair election, and if 
a majority of the people were in favor of it, that Kansas should 
come into the Union as a slaveholding State, but that if a majority 
were against it, that they should make a new constitution, and come 
in with slavery or without it, as they thought proper. [Voice : "That 
was right."] Yes, my dear sir, it was not only right, but it was 
carrying out the principle of the Nebraska bill in its letter and in 
its spirit. Of course I voted for it, and so did every Republican 
Senator and Representative in Congress. I have found some De- 
mocrats so perfectly straight that they blame me for voting for the 
principle of the Nebraska bill because the Republicans voted the 
same way. [Great laughter. And "What did they say?"] 

What did they say? Why, many of them said that Douglas 
voted with the Republicans. Yes, not only that, but with the 
l)l(u:k. Republicans. Well, there are different modes of stating 
that proposition. The New York Trihune says that Douglas did 
not vote with the Republicans, but that on that question the Re- 
publicans went over to Douglas and voted with him. 

M)^ friends, I have never yet abandoned a principle because of 
the support I found men yielding to it, and I shall never abandon 
my Democratic principles merely because Republicans come to them. 
For what do we travel over the country and make speeches in every 
political canvass, if it is not to enlighten the minds of these Repub- 
licans, to remove the scales from their eyes, and to impart to them 
the light of Democratic vision, so that the}^ mtiy be able to carry 
out the Constitution of our country as our fathers made it. And if 
by preaching our principles to the people we succeed in convincing 
the Republicans of the errors of their Avays, and bring them over to 
us, are we bound to turn traitors to our principles merely because 
they give them their support ? All I have to say is that I hope the 
Republican party will stand firm, in the future, by the 'Vote they 
gave on the Crittenden-Montgomery bill. I hope we will find, in 
t lie resolutions of their Count}^ and Congressional Conventions, no 
declarations of "no more Slave States to be admitted into this 
Union, " but in lieu of that declaration that we will find the princi- 



i2t; si'i:i:< 11 ni-- doiim.as, 

pie that the people of every State ami every Teirilorv shall t(iiiie 
into the I'nuni with slavery or without it, just as they please, with- 
out any interft-reiiee on the part of ("ouj^iess. 

My frieiuls, whilst 1 was at Washiii|::ton, engaged in this great 
hattle for s<»un(l eonstitutional prineiples, I fuul from the newspa- 
jKTs that the Uepuldiean party of this State assembled in this capi- 
tal in State Convention, and not only nominated, as it was wise and 
proper for them to do, a man for my successor in the Senate, hul 
laid down a platform, and tluir nominee made a speech, carefidly 
written and pn-pared, and well delivered, which that Conyention ac- 
cepted as containing 

THE REPUBLICAN CREED. 

T have nf> coinment to make on that part of Mr. Lincoln's speech 
in which he represents me as forming a conspiracy with the Supreme 
Court, and with the late Presitlent of the United States, and the 
present chief magistrate, having for my object the passage of the 
Nebraska bill, the Dreil Scott decision, and the extensitm of slavery. 
— a scheme of political tricksters, composed of Chief Justice- 
Taney and his eight associates, two Presidents of the United 
States, and one Senator of Illinois. If Mr. Lincoln deems me a 
conspirator of that kind, all I have to say is that I do not think so 
badly of the President of the United States, and the Supreme Court 
of the United Stat«'s, the highest judicial tribunal on earth, as to 
believe that they were capable in their action and decision of enter- 
ing into political intrigues for partisan purposes. I therefore shall 
only notice those parts of Mr. Lincoln's speech in which he lays 
• lovvn his platform of principles, and tells you what he intends to 
do if he is elecli'd to the Senate of the I'nited States. 

[ An old gentleman here arose on the platform and said, '>Be 
particular now, .Iu<lge, be particular. "] 

Mf. /)i>ii,ffiis. — My venerable friend here says he will be grati- 
ne«l if I will be particular; and in order that 1 may be so, I will 
read the language of .^Ir. Lincoln as n-porled liy himself and piih- 
lislu'd to the country. Mr. Lincoln lays down his main proposition 
in these words: — 

'•'A hoiiHi* (lividcil apiinst ilsclf ejoiini) slaiid.' I liojii'vc tin's Ciiioii 
I'uiinnt i-iitbiri- |HTtiiaiiciilly, lialf I'm and lialf S|avi>. I do not r.xpret thr 
I'nion will Im- dissolvi'd, 1 d') not •■\)H-rt the hiitiso to fall; liiit I <lo r-.\iw>cl 
il to ccaiko l*j be dnidcd. Il will brouine all c»no thing or all the other." 



SPIXGFIEL]). ILL.. JULY 17. 1858. 127 

Mr. Lincoln does not think this Union can continue to exist 
composed of half Slave and half Free States ; they must all be Free, 
or all Slave. I do not doubt that this is Mr. Lincoln's conscientious 
conviction. I do not doubt that he thinks it is the highest duty of 
ever}- patriotic citizen to preserve this glorious Union, and to adopt 
these measures as necessary to its preservation. He tells you that 
the only mode to preserve the Union is to make all the States Free, 
or all Slave. It must be the one, or it must be the other. Now, that 
being essential, in his estimation, to the preservation of this glor- 
ious Union, how is he going to accomplish it ? He says that he 
wants to go to the Senate in order to carry out this favorite patriotic 
policy of his, of making all the States Free, so that the house shall 
no longer be divided against itself. 

When he gets to the Senate, by what means is he going to ac- 
complish it? By an Act of Congress? Will he contend that Con- 
gress has any power under the Constitution to abolish slavery in 
any State of this r'nion, or to interfere with it directly or indirectly? 
Of course he will not contend that. Then what is to be his mode 
of carrying out his principle, by which slavery- shall be alx)lished in 
all of the States? Mr. Lincoln certainly does not speak at random. 
He is a lawyer, — an eminent lawyer. — and his profession is to knov,- 
the remed}- for every wrong. What is his remedy for this imagin- 
ary wrong which he supposes to exist? The Constitution of the 
United States provides that it may be amended by Congress passing 
an amendment by a two-thirds majority of each house, which shall 
be ratified by three-fourths of the States: and the inference is that 
^Ir. Lincoln intends to carry this slavery agitation into Congress 
with the view of amending the Constitution so that slavery can be 
alx)lished in all the States of the Union. 

In other words, he is not going to allow one portion of the 
Union to be slave and another portion to be free, he is not going to 
permit the house to he divided against itself. He is going to 
remedy it by lawful and constitutional means. What are to be 
these means? How can he alx>lish slavery in those States where it 
exists? There is but one mode by which a political organization. 
com^KJsed of men in the Free States, cun abolish slavery in the 
slaveholding States, and that would be to a1x)lish the State Legis- 
latures, blot out of existence the State sovereignties, invest Congress 
with full and plenary power over all the local and domestic and police 
regulations of the different States of this Union. Then there would 
be uniformity in the local concerns and domestic institutions of t!ie 



128 SPKKlM OF Dor ('.LAS, 

ditfi-rvnt States; tbeii tin- liouse would he no longer divideil against 
itM'lf ; tlu'U the States would all 1)0 Free, or they wonld all l>e Slave ; 
then v«»u would have uniformity prevailing llirougliout this whole 
land in the loeal and tloinestie institutions: hut it would i>e a uni- 
ft)riuily, not of lil)erty. l)ul a uniformity of despotism that would 
triumph. I suhmit to you. my fellow-citizens, whether this is not 
the logical conseiiuence of Mr. Lincoln's proposition. 

I have called on Mr. Lincoln to explain what he did mean, if he 
did not mean this, and he has made a speech at Chicago in which 
lie attempts to explain. And how does he explain? 1 will give 
him the henelit of his own language, precisely as it was rep()rted in 
the Repuhlican papers of that city, after undergoing his revision: — 

■' I huvo said a humlri-tl timt'S, and have now no iiu'lination to take it 
back, tliat I h.-licvf thtTi- is no ri^'hl and oUf.dil to bo no inclination in the 
|¥'oplc' of till' Frt-i' Stati-s to enter into tho Slave States and interfere with 
the (luestiun of slavery at all." 

lie helieves there is no right on the part of the free people of 
the Free States to enter the Slave States and interfere with the ([ues- 
tion of slavery, hence he does not propose to go into Kentucky and 
stir up a civil war and a servile war between the blacks and 
the whites. All he proposes is to invite the people of Illinois 
and every other Free State to band together as one sectional 
party, governed anil diviiled by a geographical line, to make war 
u|K>n the institution (»f slavery in the slaveholding States. He is 
going to carry it «iut by means of a political party that has its ad- 
herents only in the Free States, — a political party that does not pre- 
tend that it can give a solitary vote In the Slave States of the Union; 
and by this secti<uial vote he is going to elect a President of the 
I'nited States, form a cabinet, and administer the Government 
on sectional grounds, l»eing the power of the North over that of 
the S<»uth. 

In other words, he invitis a war of the North against the South, 
a warfan* of tlu- Free Slates against the slaveholding Slates. He 
asks all men in the Free Stales to i-onspire to exterminate slavery in 
the Southern States, so as to make them all free, and then he noti- 
fies the South that unless they are going to sul)mit to »)ur etlorts to 
exterminate their institutions, they must baiul together and plant 
uluvery in Illinois and every Northern State. He says that the 
States must all be Free or must all In- Slave. On this point I take 
i-sue with him dire«-tly. I assert that Illinois has a right to decide 
Ihu hlavery «iueHtion for herself. We have decideil it, and L think 



SPRINGFIELD, ILL., JULY 17, 1858. 129 

we have done it wisely; but whether wisel}^ or unwisely, it is our 
business, and the people of no other State have any right to interfere 
with us, directly or indirectl3^ Claiming as we do this right for 
ourselves, we must concede it to every other State, to be exercised 
by tlicm respectively. 

Now, Mr. Lincoln says that he will not enter into Kentucky to 
abolish slaver}- there, but that all he will do is to fight slavery 
in Kentucky from Illinois. IJe will not go over there to set fire to 
the match. I do not think he would. Mr. Lincoln is a very pru- 
dent man. He would not deem it wise to go over into Kentucky to 
stir up this strife, but he would do it from this side of the river. 
Permit me to inquire whether the wrong, the outrage, of interference 
by one State with the local concerns of another is worse when you 
actually invade them than it would be if you carried on the warfare 
from another State? For the purpose of illustration, suppose the 
British Grovernment should plant a battery on the Niagara River, 
opposite Buffalo, and throw their shells over into Buffalo, where 
tiiey should explode and blow up the houses and destroy the town. 
We call the British Government to an account, and they say, in the 
lauguage of Mr. Lincoln, we did not enter into the limits of the 
United States to interfere with you; we planted the battery on our 
own soil, and had a right to shoot from our own soil; and if our 
shells and balls fell in Buffalo and killed your inhabitants, why, 
it is your look-out, not ours. 

Thus, Mr. Lincoln is going to plant his Abolition batteries all 
along the banks of the Ohio River, and throw his shells into Vir- 
ginia and Kentucky and into Missouri, and blow up the institution 
of shivery; and when we arraign him for his unjust interference 
with the institutions of the other States, he says, "Why, I never 
did enter into Kentucky to interfere with her; I do not propose to 
do it; I only propose to take care of my own head by keeping on 
this side of the river, out of harm's way." But yet he says he is 
going to persevere in this system of sectional warfare, and I have 
no doubt he is sincere in what he says. He says that the existence 
of the Union depends upon his success in firing into these Slave 
States until he exterminates them. He saj's that unless he shall 
play his batteries successfully, so as to abolish slavery in every one 
of the States, that the Union shall be dissolved; and he saj's that a 
dissolution of the Union v.ould be a terrible calamity. Of course it 
would. We are all friends of the Union. We all believe — I do — 
that our lives, our liberties, our hopes in the future, depend upon 
g 



130 SPKECH OF DOl'liLAS. 

thf pri'scrvation ami iHTiK-luily of this glurioiis I'nion. 1 helii'vo 
that till' hopes of the friends of liberty throughout the world depend 
ujMin the per|Ktiiity of the Anierii-an Unicju. Hut while I believe 
that my niode of pn-servinj; the I'nion is a very iliirerent one from 
that of Mr. Lineolu, I believe that the I'nion can only be preserved 
by ujaintainin^ inviolate the Constitution of the United States as 
our fathers have made it. 

Th;»t Constitution guarantees to the people of ever}' »State the 
ri}iht to have slavery or not have it; to have negroes or not have 
tliem; to have Maine liipuir laws or not have them; to have just 
sueh institutions as they choose, eacii State being left free to tlecide 
for itjjelf. The framers of that Constitution uever conceived the 
itleu that uniformity in the domestic institutions of the ditferent 
States was either desirable or possible. They well understood that 
the laws and institutions wiiich w«)ui(l be well adapted to the granite 
hills of New Hampshire would be unfit for the rice plantations of 
South Carolina; they well understood that each one of the thirteen 
States had distinct and separate interests, and recpiired distinct and 
separate local laws and local institutions. And in view of that 
fact they provided that each State should retain its sovereign power 
within its own limits, with the right to make just such laws and 
just such institutions as it saw proper, under the belief that no two 
of them wouhl be alike. If they had supposed that uniformity was 
desirable and possible, why did they provide for a separate legisla- 
ture for I'aeh State? Why did they not blot out State sovereignty 
and State legislatures; ami give all the power to Congress, in order 
that the laws miglit be uniform? For the very reason that uniform- 
ity, in their opinion, was neither desirable nor possible. 

We havt' inerea.sed from thirteen States to thirty-two States; and 
just in pro|H)rtion as the number of St^ites increases and our terri- 
Uiry expands, there will be a still greater variety and dissimilarity 
of elimat*', of production, and of interest, recpiiring a correspond- 
ing di.ssimilarity and varii'ty in the local laws and institutions 
adapti-d then-to. The laws that are necessary in the mining regions 
of California w<iuld be tot;illy useless and vicious on the prairies of 
IllinoiH; the laws that would suit the lumber regions of Maine or of 
Minne.'Mita would l»e totally useless and valtU'less in the tobacco 
ri'gions of Virginia an«l Kentucky the laws which would suit the 
manufacturing districts of New Kngland would be totally unsuited 
to the planting regions of the Carolinas, of (Jeorgia, and of L<»uisi- 
iina. Kach State is supposed to have interests se|)aratc and dis 



SPRINGFIELD, ILL., JULY 17, 1858. 131 

tinct from e:ieli and every other ; and hence must have laws different 
from each and every other State, in order that its hiws shall be 
adapted to the condition and necessities of the people. 

Hence I insist that our institutions rest on the theory that there 
shall be dissimilarity and variety in the local laws and institutions 
of the different States, instead of all being uniform; and you find, 
my friends, that Mr. Lincoln and myself differ radically and totally 
on the fundamental principles of this Government. He goes for 
consolidation, for uniformity in our local institutions, for blotting 
out State rights and State sovereignty, and consolidating all the 
power in the Federal Government, for converting these thirty-two 
sovereign States into one empire, and making uniformity through- 
out the length and breadth of the land. On the other hand, I go 
for maintaining the authority of the Federal Government within the 
limits marked out by the Constitution, and then for maintaining 
and preserving the sovereignty of each and all of the States of the 
Union, in order that each State may regulate and adopt its own 
local institutions in its own way, without interference from any 
power whatsoever. Thus you find there is a distinct issue of princi- 
ples — principles irreconcilable — between Mr. Lincoln and myself. 
He goes for consolidation and uniformity in our Government; I go 
for maintaining the confederation of the sovereign States under the 
Constitution as our fathers made it, leaving each State at liberty to 
manage its own affairs and own internal institutions. 

THE DRED SCOTT DECISION. 

Mr. Lincoln makes another point upon me, and rests his whole 
case upon these two points. His last pomt is, that he will wage a 
warfare upon the Supreme Court of the United States because of 
the Dred Scott decision. He takes occasion, in his speech made 
before the Republican Convention, in my absence, to arraign me, 
not only for having expressed my acquiescence in that decision, but 
to charge me with being a conspirator with that coui't in devising 
that decision three years before Dred Scott ever thought of com- 
mencing a suit for his freedom. The object of his speech was to 
convey the idea to the people that the court could not be trusted, 
that the late President could not be trusted, that the present one 
could not be trusted, and that Mr. Douglas could not be trusted; 
that they were all conspirators in bringing about that corrupt 
decision, to which Mr. Lincoln is determined he will never yield a 
willing obedience. 



132 SPEKCH iH' ixdtil.AS, 

Hi' iii:ik«'s two jioiuU upon tlu' pR-il Seott decision. The first is 
that lif oltjei'U to it because tlie court decided that uegroes 
drsrrndftl of shive parents are not citizens of the United States; 
and, st'e«)niny, In-eaiise ihi y have decided that the Act of Congress 
passed Hth of .Manh, 1S2(>, prohibiting shivery in all of the Terri- 
torifs north of ;U»° '.W, was unconstitutional and void, and hence 
did not havf efFt-et in emancipating a slave brought into that Terri- 
torv. And he will imt siilnnit to tli:it decision. He says that he 
will not fight the Judges or the Uuited States Marshals in order to 
liberate Dred Scott, but that he will not respect that decision, as a 
rule of law binding on this country, in the future. Why not? Be- 
cause, he says, it is unjust. How is he going to remedy it? Why, 
he says he is going to reverse it. How? He is going to take an 
appeal. To whom is he going to appeal? The Constitution of the 
United States provides that the Supreme Court is the ultimate 
tribunal, the highest judicial tribunal on earth; and Mr. Lincoln is 
going to appeal from that! To wlioni? 

1 know hi' appi-aU'd t<» tlu' licpulilican State Convention of Illi- 
nt»is. anil I hi-lii've that Convi-ntion reversed the decision; but I am 
not aware that lliey have yet carried it into elFi-et. How are they 
going to make that reversal efTectual? Why, Mr. Lincoln tells us 
in his late Chicago spi-eeh. lie explains it as clear as light. He 
says to tile people of Illinois that if you elect him to the Senate he 
will introtlucc a bill to re-enact the law which the court pronounced 
uneonstitutional. [Shout."-; of laughter, and voices, " ,Sy>/«^ the law."] 
Yes, lie is going to spot the law. The court pronounces that law 
prohibiting slavery, unconstitutional and void, and Mr. Lincoln is 
going to pass an Ail ri'Vi'r.">ing that decision and making it valid. 
I never heard before of an api)eal Ijeing taken from the Supreme 
Court to the Congress of the CnitiMl States to reverse its decision. 
I havi' heard of appeals bi'ing taken from Congress to the Supreme 
Court to iledare a statute void. That has lieen done from the 
earliest days of Chief Justice Marshall down to the present time. 

The Supreme Court of Illinois do not hesitate to pronounce an 
Act of the Legislature void, as being repugnant to the Constitution, 
und the Suprwme Court of the Cnited States is vested Ity the Consti- 
tution with that very |>ower. The Constitution says that the judi- 
cial |M)wer of the I'nited States shall be vested in the Supreme 
Court und such inferior courts as Congress shall, from lime to lime, 
onlain and establish. Hence it is the province and duty of the 
Supreme Cotirl Ut pronounce judgment on the validity and constitu- 



SPRINGFIELD, ILL., JULY 17, Isr.S. 133 

tionality of an Act of Congress. In this case they have done so, 
and Mr. Lincohi will not snbniit to it, and he is going to reverse it 
b}' another Act of Congress of the same tenor. My opinion is that 
Mr. Lincoln ought to be on the Supreme Bench himself, when the 
Republicans get into power, if that kind of law knowledge qualifies 
a man for the l)ench. 

But Mr. Lincoln intimates that there is another mode by which 
he can reverse the Dred Scott decision. How is that? Why, he is 
going to appeal to the people to elect a President who will appoint 
judges who will reverse the Dred Scott decision. Well, let us see 
how that is going to be done. First, he has to carry on his sec- 
tional organization, a party confined to the Free States, making war 
upon the slaveholding States until he gets a Republican President 
elected. [Voice: " He never will, sir."] I do not believe he ever 
will. But suppose he should; when that Republican President shall 
have taken his seat (Mr. Seward, for instance), will he then pro- 
ceed to appoint judges? No! he will have to wait until the present 
judges die before he can do that; and perhaps his four years would 
be out before a majority of these judges found it agreeable to die; 
and it is very possible, too, that Mr. Lincoln's senatorial term 
would expire before these judges would be accommodating enough 
to die. If it should sp happen; I do not see a very great prospect 
foi Mr. Lmcoln to reverse the Dred Scott decision. 

But suppose they should die, then how are the new judges to be 
appointed? Why, the Republican President is to call upon the 
candidates and catechise them, and ask them, "How will you decide 
this case if I appoint you judge ? " Suppose, for instance, Mr. 
Lincoln to be a candidate for a vacancy on the Supreme Bench to 
(ill Chief Justice Taney's place, and when he applied to Seward, the 
Litter would say, "Mr. Lincoln, I cannot appoint you until I know 
how you will decide the Dred Scott case ? " Mr. Lincoln tells him, 
and he then asks him how he will decide Tom Jones's case, and Bill 
Wilson's case, and thus catechises the Judge as to how he will decide 
any case which may arise before him. Suppose you get a Supreme 
Court composed of such Judges, who have been appointed by a 
partisan President upon their giving pledges how they would decide 
a case ])efore it arose, — what confidence would you have in such a 
court ? Would not your court be prostituted beneath the contempt 
of all mankind ? What man would feel that his liberties were safe, 
his right of iierson or property was secure, if the Supreme Bench, 
that august tribunal, the highest on earth, w^as brought down to 



i:u sPKF.rii OF ixtrnT.As. 

lljat low, ilirly jxHtl whiTfiii the Judgi-s are to give pledges in 
advance how they will decide all the questions which may be 
Itroiight Ix'fore them ? It is a proposition to make that court the 
corrupt, unscrupulous t(M>l of a political party. But Mr. Linc-oln 
cannot conscientiously sulmiit, he thinks, to the decision of a court 
c(»m|K>seil of a majority of Democrats. If he cannot, how can he 
expert us to have contidence in a court composed of a majoiity of 
lie|)ulilieaiis, selected for the purpo.se of deciding against the 
l)em«)cracy, and in favor of the Kepuhlicans ? Tiie very proposi- 
tion carries with it the demoralization and tU'gradation destructive 
of the judicial department of tlie Federal (iovernment. 

sri'KKMK COURT DECISION FIN'AI,. 

I say to you, fellow-citizens, that I have no warfare to make upon 
ihe Supreme Court because of the Dred Scott decision. I have no com- 
plaints to make against that Court because of that decision. My private 
opinions on .st>me points of the ca.se may have been one way; and on 
other points of the case another; in some things concurring with the 
Court, and in others dissenting; but what have my private opinions 
in a question of law to do with the decision after it has been pro- 
nounced by the highest judicial tribunal known to the Constitution ? 
You, sir [addressing the chairman], as an eminent lawyer, have a 
right to entertain your opinions on any (juestion that comes before 
the court, and to appear before the tribunal and maintain them 
lM)ldly and with ti^'nacity until the final decision shall have been 
pronounced; and then, sir, whether you are sustiuned or overruled, 
your duty as a lawyer and a citi/.i'ii is to bow in deference lo that 
deeision. I intend to yield obedience to the decisions of the highest 
tribunals in the land in all cases, whether their opinions are in 
conformity with my views as a lawyer or not. When we refuse to 
abide by judicial decisions, what protection is there left for life and 
property ? To whom shall you appeal ? To mob law, to partisan 
caucuses, to town meetings, to revolution ? Where is the jemedy 
when you refuse obedience to the constituted authorities? I will 
not stop to inquire whether I agree or disagree with all the opin- 
ions expressed by Judge Taney or any other judge. It is enough 
for me to know that the decision has been made. It has been made 
by a tribunal appointed by the Constitution to make it; it was a 
point within their jurisdiction, and I am bound by it. 

Hut, my friends, Mr. T/incoln says that this Dri-d Scott deeision 
•leslroyH the doctrine of popular sovereignty, for tiie reason that the 



SPIUXtJFIELD. IT>T. . JULY 17, "S.IS. 135 

Court has decided that Congress had no power to prohibit slaverj' in 
the Territories, and hence he infers that it would decide that the 
Territorial IcLlihilatu'.es could not prohiliit slavery there. I will not 
stop to inquire whether the Court will carry the decision that far 
or not. It would be interesting as a matter of theory, but of no 
importance in practice ; for this reason, that if the people of a Ter- 
ritory want slavery they will have it, and if they do not want it 
they will drive it out, and you cannot force it on them. Slavery 
cannot exist a day in the midst of an unfriendly people with 
unfriendly laws. There is truth and wisdom in a remark made to 
me by an eminent Southern senator, when speaking of this techni- 
cal right to take slaves into the Territories. Said he, " 1 do not 
care a fig which way the decision shall be, for it is of no particular 
consequence; slavery cannot exist a da}' or an hour in an}' Territory 
or State unless it has affirmative laws sustaining and supporting it, 
furnishing police regulations and remedies; and an omission to 
furnish them would be as fatal as a constitutional prohibition. 
Without affirmative legislation in its favor, slavery could not exist 
any longer than a ncAV-born infant could survive under the heat of 
the sun, on a barren rock, without protection. It would wilt and 
die for the want of support." 

So it would be in the Territories. See the illustration in Kansas. 
The Republicans have told j'ou, during the whole histor}' of that 
Territory, down to last winter, that the pro-slavery party in the 
Legislature had passed a pro-slavery code, est.iblishing and sustain- 
ing slavery in Kansas, but that this pro-slavery Legislature did not 
truly represent the people, but was imposed upon them by an inva- 
sion from Missouri; and hence the Legislature were one wa}', and the 
people another. Granting all this, and what has been the result? 
With laws supporting slavery, but the people against, there are not 
as many slaves in Kansas to-day as there were on the day the 
Nebraska bill passed and the Missouri Compromise was repealed. 
Why? Sim])!}' because slave-owners knew that if they took their 
slaves into Kansas, where a majority of the people were opposed to 
slaver}', that it would soon be abolished, and they would lose their 
right of property in consequence of taking them there. Fcr that 
reason they would not take or keep them there. If there had been 
a majority of the people in favor of slavery, and the climate had 
been favorable, they would have taken them there; but the climate 
not being suitable, the interest of the people being opposed to it, 
and a majority of them against it, the slave-owner did not find it 



13G SPEE( II OF DoriiLA;^. 

profltnMe to t:ike his slaves thoiv, and consequently there are not 
as many slaves there to-thiy as on the day the Missouri Comproiuisi; 
was repealed. This shows clearly that if the people do not want 
slavery they will keep it out; and if they ilo want it, they will pro- 
tect it. 

You have a good illustration of this in the Territorial history of 
this Stale. You all remember that by the Ordinance of 1787 slav- 
ery was prohibited in Illinois; yet you all know, particularly you 
olil settlers who were here in Territorial times; that the Territorial 
Legislature, in defiance of that Ordinance, passed a law allowing 
you to go into Kentucky, buy slaves, and bring them into the 
Territory, having them sign indentures to serve you and your 
posterity ninety-nine years, and their posterity thereafter to do the 
same. This hereditary slavery was introduced in defiance of the 
Act of Congress. That was the exercise of popular sovereignty, — 
the right of a Territory to decide the question for itself in defiance 
of the Act of Congress. On the other hand, if the people of a 
Territory are hostile to slavery, they will drive it out. Conse- 
(jiiiiitly, this theoretical question raised upon the Dred Scott de- 
cision is worthy of no consideration whatsoever, l'<jr it i.s only 
brought into these political discussions and u.>*ed as a hobby upon 
which to ride into oflice, or out of which to manufacture political 
capital. 

LEGAL EFFECT OF THE DECISION. 

But Mr. Lincoln's main objection to the Dred Scott decision I 
have reserved for my conclusion. His principal objection to that 
decision is that it was intended to deprive the negro of the rights of 
citizenship in the diirerent States of the Union. Well, suppose it 
was. — and there is no doubt that that was its legal effect,— what 
is his obje<tion to it? W hy, he thinks that a munt ought to be 
permitted to have the rights of citiy.enship. lie is in favor of negro 
citizenship, and opposed to the Dri'd Scott decision, bei-ause it de- 
«'l;:re8 that a negro is not a citizen, and hence is not entitled to vote. 
Here I have a direct issue with Mr. Lincoln. I am not in favor of 
negro citizenship. I do not believe that a negro is a citizen or 
ought to Ik? a citizen. I litlieve that this (Jovernment of ours was 
founded, and wisely founded, upon the white i)asis. It was made 
by white men for the benc-lit of white men and tlii-ir posterity, to be 
executed and managed by whit«' men. I freely concede that hu- 
manity requires us to exteml all tin- protection, all the privileges, 



SPRINGFIELD, ILL., JULY IT. 1858. 137 

all the immunities, to the Indian and the negro which they are 
capable of enjoying consistent with the safety of society. 

Yon mny then ask me what are those rights, what is the nature 
and extent of the rights which a negro ought to have? M}' answer 
is that this is a question for each State and each Territory to decide 
for itself. In Illinois we have decided that a negro is not a slave, 
but we have at the same time determined that he is not a citizen 
and shall not enjoy any political rights. I concur in the wisdom of 
that policy, and am content with it. I assert that the sovereignty 
of Illinois had a right to determine that question as we have de- 
cided it, and I deny that any other State has a right to interfere 
with us or call us to account for that decision. In the State of 
Maine the}- have decided by their Constitution that the negro shall 
exercise the elective franchise and hold office on an equality with 
the white man. Whilst I do not concur in the good sense or cor- 
rect taste of that decision on the part of Maine, I have no disposi- 
tion to quarrel with her. It is her business, and not ours. If the 
people of Maine desire to be put on an equality with the negro, I 
do not know that anybod}' in this State will attempt to prevent it. 
If the white people of Maine think a negro their equal, and that he 
has a right to come and kill their vote b}' a negro vote, they have a 
right to think so, I suppose, and I have no disposition to interfere 
with them. 

Then, again, passing over to New York, we find in that State 
they have provided that a negro may vote, provided he holds $250 
worth of property, but that he shall not unless he does: that is to say, 
they will allow a negro to vote if he is rich, but a poor fellow they 
will not allow to vote. In New York they think a rich negro is 
equal to a white man. Well, that is a matter of taste with them. 
If they think so in that State, and do not cairv the doctrine outside 
of it, and propose to interfere with us, I have no quarrel to make 
with them. It is their business. There is a great deal of philoso- 
ph}- and good sense in a saying of Fridle}- of Kane. Fridley had a 
lawsuit before a justice of the peace, and the justice decided it 
against him. This he did not like; and standing up and looking at 
the justice for a moment, "Well, Square," said he, " if a man 
chooses to make a darnation fool of himself, I suppose there is no 
law against it." That is all I have to say about these negro regula- 
tions and this negro voting in other States where they have s^'stems 
different from ours. If it is their wish to have it so, be it so. 
There is no cause to complain. Kentucky has decided that it is 



13S SPEECH OF DOUGLAS. 

lioi cvmsisteDt with her safety and her procsperity to allow a negro :<> 
have either political rights or his freedom, and hence she mak 
""■ - ' ■-"->. not mine. It is bt 
The sovereignty of .\ 
and that alone, can decide that question; and when she decides 
tlK-re is no power on earth to which yon can appeal to reverse : 
Therefon'. lesvo Kvalucky as the Constitution has left her. a so-- 
er\'iiru. • i^ Slate, with the exclusive right to have slaverj 

or not a> >... .., v'>es. and so long as I hold power I will maintain 
and defend her rights against any assaults, from whatever quarter 
the\ lie. 

I t r stop to inquire whether I approve or disapprove - 

the domestic institutions of a State. I maintain her sovereign 
rights. I defemi ' - reignty from all assault, in the h*>pe that 
she will join in ■ _' us when we are assaileii by any outside 

power. How are we to protect our sovereign rights^ to keep slav- 
ery out, unless we protect the sovereign rights of every other State 
to devide the question for itself? Let Kentucky, or South Carolina, 
or any other State attempt to interfere in Illinois, and tell us that we 
shall establish slaver}', in orvier to make it uniform, according to 
Mr. Lincoln's proposition, throughout the Union; let them come 
at we must - have slavery. — and I will 

ow me. and > . ist tln.>pof our hearts" blood 

in repelling the invasion and chastising their insolence. And if we 

- - _ wer in our own 

- . _ : State. 

.VRE .\.LL MEN' CREATED EViC-VL ? 

Hence, yoa find that Mr. Lincoln and m\-self come to a direct 
issue on this whole doctritH> of slavery. He is gv^ing to wage a 
war aiTainst it evervwhere. not onlv in Hlinois. but in his native 



to be self-eriiient, that all men are created equal; that tbev are t : 

~ ~ - A s 

whether that mstnimcnt doos not declare that all men are created 
' ^'- ' - . .- . •- V that that cbuse of the iv- 

ies. [Voice, '• I say not 

Wrii, It \utt askV tkut, i do laui iiuttk VOU vill TOte foT 3ir. Liocol: 



SPRINGFIELD. ILL.. .JULY 17, 1858. 13!) 

Mr. Lincoln goes on to argue th;it the language "all men " inchuled 
the negroes, Indians, and all inferior races. 

In his Chicago speech he says, in so many words, that it includes 
tile negroes, that they were endowed l)y the Almighty with the right 
of equality with the white man, and tiierefore that that right is di- 
vine, ^ — a right under the higher law; th;it the law of (!o(l makes 
them ccjual to the white man, and therefore that the law of the 
white man cannot deprive them of that right. This is Mr. Lincoln's 
argument. Tie is conscientious in his belief. I do not question his 
sincerity; I do not doubt that he, in his conscience, believes that 
the Almighty made the negro equal to the white man. He thinks 
that the negro is his brother. I do not think that the negro is any 
kin of mine at all. And here is the difference between us. I l)e- 
licA'e that the Declaration of lnde[)endence, in the words, "all men 
are created ecpial," was intended to allude only to the people of the 
United States, to men of European birth or descent, being white 
men; that they were created equid, and hence that Great 13ritain 
had no right to deprive them of their political and religious privi- 
leges; but the signers of thaX jjaper did not intend to include the 
Indian or the negro in that declaration; for if they had, would they 
not have been bound to abolish slavery in every State and colony 
from that day ? 

Remember, too, that at the time the Declaration was put forth, 
every one of the thirteen colonies were slaveholding colonies ; every 
man who signed that Declaration represented slaveholding constitu- 
ents. Did those signers mean I)y that act to charge themselves and 
all their constituents with having violated the law of God, in hold- 
ing the negro in an inferior condition to the white man ? And yet, 
if they included negroes in that term, they were bound, as conscien- 
tious men, that day and that hour, not only to have abolished slav- 
ery throughout the land, but to have conferred political rights and 
privileges on the negro, and elevated him to an equality with the 
white man. [Voice, " They did not do it. "] I know they did not 
do it; and the very fact that they did not shows that they did not 
understand the language they u.sed to include any but the white 
race. Did they mean to say that the Indian, on this continent, was 
created ecpial to the white man, and that he was endowed by the 
Almighty with inalienable rights, — rights so sacred that they could 
not be taken away by any constitution or law that man could pass ? 
Why, their whole action toward the Indian showed that they never 
dreamed that they were bound to i)ut him on an equality. I am not 



140 SPEECH oK Don; LAS, 

only opposi'd to lU'gn) fiiualily, l»ut I am opixjsed to Indian cciuality. 
1 urn opiKJsed to putlin*!; tlie Coolies, now importing into this oountiy, 
on nu fijiiality willi us, or puttinjj the Chinese or any inferior race 
on an ei|uality with us. 

1 hold that the white race, the Kuropean race, I care not whether 
Iri.sh, German, French, Scotch, English, or to what nation they be- 
long, so they are the white race, to be our equals. And I am for 
placing them, as our fathers ilid, on an etjuality with u.s. Emi- 
grants from Europe, and their di'scendants, constitute the people of 
the United States. The Declaration of Independence only included 
the white people of the United States. The Constitution of the 
Iniled Stales wa^ framed liy liu- wliite people; it ought to be ad- 
ministered by them, leaving each State to make such regulations 
concerning the negro as it chooses, allowing him political rights or 
not, as it chooses, and allowing /tiin civil rights or not. as it may 
determine for itself. 

Let us only carry out those principles, and we will have peace 
and harmony in the dill'erent States. But Mr. Jjincolns conscienti- 
ous scruples on this point govern his aetions, and I honor him for 
following them, although I ablior the doctrine which he preaches. 
His conscientious scruples lead liim to believe th:it the negro is en- 
titled by divine right to the civil and political privileges of citizen- 
ship on an etjuality with the white man. 

For that reason be sa^'s he wishes the Dred Scott decision re- 
versed. He wishes to confer those privileges of citizenship on the 
negro. Let us see how he will do it. He will first be called upon 
t4> strike out of the Constitution of Illinois that clause which pro- 
hil)it.s free negroes and slaves from Kentucky or any other State 
coming into Illinois. When he blots out that clause, when he lets 
«lown the dcx^r or opens the gate for all tlu; negro population to How 
in and cover our prairies, until in midday tlu-y will look dark and 
lilack as night, — when he shall have done this, his mission will yet 
Ik- unfuHilled. Then it will be that he will apply his [)rinc-iples of 
negro ('(juality; that is, if he can get the' Dred Scott decision re- 
versed in the mean time. lb- will then change the Constitution 
again, and all<»w negroes to vote and hold ollice, and will make them 
eligilile to the Legislature, so that thereafter they can have the right 
n>en f«»r I'nited States Senators. !!»• will allow them to vote to elect 
the Legislature, the Judges, and the (iovernor, and will make them 
eligible to the olllce of Judge or (lovernor, or to the Legislature. 
Mr will put tlii-m on .•ui e(|uality with the white man. Wliat then? 



SPRINGFIELD. ILL., JULY 17, 1858. Ul 

Of course, after making them eligible to the judiciary, when he gets 
Curtee elevated to the bench, he certainly will not refuse his judge 
the privilege of marr3'ing an}" woman he may select! 

I submit to you whether these are not the legitimate conse- 
quences of his doctrine ? If it be true, as he says, that by the Dec- 
laration of Independence and by divine law, the negro is created 
the equal of the white man; if it be true that the Dred Scott decis- 
ion is unjust and wrong, because it deprives the negro of citizenship 
and equality with the white man, — then does it not follow that if 
he had the power he would make negroes citizens, and give them all 
the rights and all the privileges of citizenship on an equality with 
white men ? I think that is the inevitable conclusion. I do not 
doubt Mr. Lincoln's conscientious conviction on the subject, and I 
do not doubt that he will carry out that doctrine if he ever has the 
power : but I resist it because I am uttterly opposed to any political 
amalgamation or any other amalgamation on this continent. We 
are witnessing the result of giving civil and political rights to 
inferior races in Mexico, in Central America, in South America, and 
in the West India Islands. Those J'oung men who went from here 
to Mexico to fight the battles of their country in the Mexican war 
can tell you the fruits of negro equalit}' with the white man. They 
will tell you that the result of that equality is social amalgamation, 
demoralization, and degradation below the capacity for self-govern- 
ment. 

My friends, if we wish to preserve this Government we must 
maintain it on the basis on which it was established; to wit, the 
white basis. We must preserve the purity of the race not only in 
our politics, but in our domestic relations. We must then preserve 
the soA'ereignty of the States, and we must maintain the Federal 
Union by preserving the Federal Constitution inviolate. Let us do 
that, and our Union will not only be perpetual, but maj' extend 
until it shall spread over the entire continent. 

THE RESPECTIVE CANDIDATES. 

Fellow-citizens, I have already detained you too long. I have 
exhausted myself and wearied j'ou, and owe 30U an apology for the 
desultory manner in which I have discussed these topics. I will 
have an opportunity of addressing you again before the November 
election comes off. I come to 3'ou to appeal to your judgment as 
American citizens, to take your verdict of approval or disapproval 
upon the discharge of my public duty and my principles as com- 



112 SPi:i:< II OF 1K)UGLAS. 

pared with lliose of Mr. I^im-olu. If you couscicntiously lu-lieve 
that his principles are more in harniouy with the feelings of the 
American people ami the interests and honor of the Hepuhlic. elect 
him. If, on the contrary, you believe that my principles are 
more consistent with those great principles upon which our 
fathers framed tills (lovernmenf, then 1 shall ask you to so express 
\our opinion at the polls. 1 am aware that it is a bitter and 
severe contest, but I do not doubt what the decision of the people of 
Illinois will be. I do not anticipate any personal collision between 
Mr. Lincoln and my.self. You all know that I am an amialile, 
good-natured man, and 1 take great pleasure in bearing testimony 
to the fact that Mr. Lincoln is a kind-hearted, amiable, gooil- 
natured gentleman, with whom no man has a right to pick a quarrel, 
even if he wanted one. He is a worthy gentleman. [ have known 
him ft)r twenty-five years, and there is no belter citizen and no kinder- 
hearted man. He is a line lawyer, possesses high ability, and there 
is no objection to him, except the monstrous revolutionary doctrines 
with which lie is ideutihed and which lie conscientiously entertains, 
anil is determined to carry out if he gets the power. 

He has one element of strength upon which he relies to accom- 
plish his object, and that is his alliance with certain men in this 
State claiming to be Democrats, whose avowed object is to use their 
power to prostrate the Democratic nominees. He hopes he can se- 
cure the few men claiming to be friends of the Lccompton Constitu- 
tion, and for that reason you will find he does not say a word 
against the Lecompt<m Constitution or its supporters. He is as 
silent as the grave upon that subject. Hehold .Mr. l/mcoln courting 
Lccompton votes, in order that he may go to the Senate as the rej)- 
resentative of Kcpiiblican principles ! Von know that that alliance 
exists. I think you will lind tiiat it will ooze out Iiefore the contest 
is over. It must be a contest of principle. Kit her the radical 
AlK)lition principles of" Mr, Jiincoln niiist be maintaini'd, or the 
strong, constitutional, national Democratic principles with which I 
am identified must be carricil out. I shall be satisfied wiiati-ver 
way you decide. 1 have been sustained by the people of Hlinois 
with a steadiness, a lirniness, and an enthusiasm which m.ikes my 
heart overfiow with gratitude. If I was now to be consigned to 
privat4' life I would have nothing to ((iniplaiii of. I would even 
then owe you a del»t of gratitudt' which the balance of niy lifi- could 
not repay 

Hut. my frit-nds, you have discharged every obligation you owe 



SPRINGFIELD. ILL.. JULY 17. 1S5S 143 

tome. I have been a thousand times paid by the welcume yon 
have extended to me since I have entered the State on my return 
home this time. Your reception not only discharges all obligations, 
but it furnishes inducement to renewed efforts to serve j'ou in the 
future. If you think 3Ir. Lincohi will do more to advance the in- 
terests and elevate the character of Illinois than myself, it is your 
duty to elect him ; if you think he woukl do more to preserve the 
peace of the country and perpetuate the Union than myself, then 
elect him. I leave the question in your hands, and again tender you 
my profound thanks for the cordial and heartfelt welcome tendered 
to me this evenins 



SPEECH OF HOX. ABRAHAM LINCOLN, 

Delivered in Springfield, Saturday Evening, July 17, 185S. {Mr. Douglan was 

not present.) 

Fellow-Citizexs: Another election, which is deemed an im- 
portant one, is approaching, and, as I suppose, the Republican 
party will, without much difficult}-, elect their State ticket. But in 
regard to the Legislature, we, the Kepublicans, labor under some 
disadvantages. In the first place we have a Legislature to elect 
upon an apportionment of the representation made several years 
ago, when the proportion of the population was far greater in the 
South ' ( as compared with the North ) than it now is ; and inasmuch 
as our opponents hold almost entire swa}' in the South, and we a 
correspondingly large majority in the North, the fact that we are 
now to be represented as we were years ago, when the population 
was different, is, to us, a very great disadvantage. We had in the 
year 1S55, according to law. a census, or enumeration of the in- 
habitants, taken for the purpose of a new apportionment of repre- 
sentation. We know what a fair apportionment of representation 
upon that census would give us. We know that it could not, if 
faii-ly made, fail to give the Republican party from six to ten more 
members of the Legislature than they can probably get as the law 
now stands. 

1 The terms "South '" and ''Xortli"" here refer only to the 8QUtherB and northern portions 
of the Statt of Illiuoie. 



IJI SPEECH OF LINCOLN-. 

It 8o Impponcd at tlu- lust session jf tlii' Legislature uiat our 
O|)|)oiu'nts, holding ihe control of ooth branches of the Legislature, 
stt-adily refused to give us such an apportionment as we were 
rightly entitled to have upon the census alrea«ly taken. The Legis- 
lature steadily refused to give us such an apportionment as we were 
riglitfully entitled to have upon the census taken of the population 
of the State. The Legislature would pass no bill upon that sub- 
ject, except such as was at least as unfair to us as tlie old one, and 
in which, in some instances, two men in the Democratic regions 
were allowed to go as far toward sending a member to the Legisla- 
ture as three Were in the Ilepul)lican regions. Comparison was 
made at the time as to representative and senatorial districts, which 
completely demonstrated that such was the fact. Such a bill was 
passed and tendered to the Republican Governor for his signature; 
but principally for the reasons I aave stated, he withheld his ap- 
proval, and the bill fell without becoming a law. 

Another disadvantage under which we labor is, that there are 
one or two Democratic Senators who will be members of the next 
Legislature, and will vote for the election of Senator, who are uoM- 
ing over ia Jistricts in which we could, on all reasonable calcula- 
tion, elect men of our own, if we only had the chance of an election. 
When we consider that there are Dut twenty-five Senators in tlie 
Senate, taking two from the side where they rightfully oelong, and 
adding them to the other, is to us a disadvantage not to be lightly 
regarded. Still, so it is; we nave this to contend with. Perhaps 
there is no ground of complaint on our part. In attending to the 
many things involved in dm iast general election for President, 
Governor, Auditor, Treasurer, Superintendent of Public Instruction, 
M''m!)ers of Congress, of the Legislature, County Officers, and so 
on, we allowed these tilings to happen by want of sufficient atten- 
tion, and we aave no cause to compiain of our adversaries, so far as 
this matter is concerned. But we aave some cause to complain of 
the refusal to give us a fair apporliounient. 

TIIK aKSI'ECTlVE CANDIDATES. 

There Is still another disadvantage undtr wliich we labor, and 
to which I will ask your attention. Il inscsmi of the relative 
',K>sitionH of the two jiersoiis who stand .x lore tiic State as candi- 
d:it«'s for the Senat*-. Senator Douglas is of world-wide renown. 
All the anxious politicians of his party, or who have been of his 



SPRINGFIELD. ILL.. JULY IT. 15.J?. 145 

party for years past, have been looking upon him as certainly, at 
no distant day. to be the President of the United States. They have 
seen in his round, jolly, fruitful face, post-offices, land-offices, marshal- 
ships, and cabinet appointments, chargeships and foreign missions, 
bursting and sprouting out in wonderful exubemnce. ready to be 
laid hold of by their greedy hands. And as they have been gazing 
upon this attractive picture so long, they cannot, in the little dis- 
traction that has taken place in the party, bring themselves to give 
up the charming hope: but with greedier anxiety they rush about 
him, sustain him. and give him marches, triumphal entries, and 
receptions beyond what even in the days of his highest prosperity 
they could have brought alK)ut in his favor. 

On the contrary, nobody has ever expected me to be President. 
In my poor, lean, lank face, nobody has ever seen that any cab- 
bages were sprouting out. These are disadvantages all. taken to- 
gether, that the Republicans labor under. We have to fight this 
battle upon principle, and upon principle alone. I am. in a certaua 
Sense, made the standard-bearer in behalf of the Republicans. I 
was made so merely because there had to be some one so placed, — 
I being in nowise preferable to any other one of the twenty-five, 
perhaps a hundred, we have in the Republican ranks. Then I say 
I wish it to be distinctly understood and borne in mind that we 
have to fight this battle without many — perhaps without any — of 
the external aids which are brought to bear against us. So I hope 
those with whom I am snrroTinded have principle enough to nerve 
themselves for the task, and leave nothing undone that can be fairly 
done to bring aoout the right result. 

After Senator Douglas left Washington, as his movements were 
made known by the public prints, he tarried a considerable time in 
the city of New York ; and it was heralded that, like another Napo- 
leon, hf was Iving bv and framing the plan of his campaign. II 
was telegraphed to Washington City, and published in the Union, 
that he was framing his plan for the purpose of going to Illinois to 
pounce upon and annihilate the treasonable and disunion speech 
which Lincoln nad made here on the 16th of June. 

Now. I do suppose that the Judge really spent some time in 
New York maturing the plan of the campaign, as his friends 
heralded for him. I have been able, by noting his movements since 
his arrival in Illinois, to discover evidences confirmatory of that 
allegation. I think I have been able to see what are the material 
points of that plan. I will, for a little while, ask your attention to 



140 SPEECH (»F LINCOLN 

some of llii'iii. What 1 shall point out, though not sliowiug the 
whoK' plan, art*, neverthfless, the main points as 1 suppose 

Thev are not verv numerous. The first is popular sovereignty. 
The seeoml and third are attaeks upon my si>eeeh made on tlie Kith 
of June. Out of these three points — drawing within llie range of 
p<ipular >u\iTiMUiit v thr iiufstioi) (if the Lfeouiptoii ( "oiislitutioi! — 
he makes his principal assault. Upon these his successive speeches 
are substantially one and the same. On this matter of popular sover- 
eiuntv 1 wish to l»e a little earefid. Auxfliarv to these main points 
to l)e sure, are their thunderings of eannon, their marehing and 
musie, their lizzle-gigs and fireworks; hut 1 will not waste lime with 
them. They are Itut the little trappings of the eampaign 

'•Wli.VT IS THE M.VTTKIl OK I'OPri.AR SOVERKIGNTV ? " 

Coming to the substance, — the first point, — "popular sover 
eignty." It is to be lalielled upon thi' cars in which he travels, 
put upon the hacks he ritles in; to lie tlaunleil upon the arches he 
passes uniler, and the l)anners which wave (jver him It is to be ilisheil 
up in as many varieties as a French cook can produce soujjs from 
potatoes. Now, as this is so great a staple of the plan of the cam- 
paign, it is worth while to examine it carefully; ami if we examine 
oidy a very little, and do not allow ourselves to be misled, we shall 
l>e able to see that the whole thing is the most arrant Qiiixotisir. 
that was ever enacted before a community. What is the matter of 
popular sovereignty ? The first thing, in order to understand it, 
is to get a good definition of what it is, and after that to see how it 
is applied. 

1 suppose almost every one knows that, in this controversy, 
whatever has been said has had reference to the (pieslion of negro 
slavery. We have not been in a controversy about the right of the 
people to govern them.selves in the nn/iiittn/ matters of domestic 
concern in the States aii<l Territories Mr. Buchanan in one of his 
lat<' mes.sages (1 think when he sent up tin- liccoinplon Constiti.- 
tiou) urged that the m.iin point to which the pulilic attention had 
l»een directed was not in n-gard to the great \aiicty of small domes- 
lie matl<Ts. but w.is dijccled to the (juestion of negro slavery; and 
he a«Herls that if the peo|)le had had a fair chance to vote on that 
• jiM'stion, then- was no reas(»nable ground of oltjcctiun in ngard to 
minor <|Uestion.s. Now, while I think tli.-it the people had nol had 
given.or olFerefl them, a fair eiianee upon that slavery <piestion, still, 
if there hud been u fair oubmiusion to a vole upon thai main question^ 



SPRlXnFIKLD ILL , JULY 17 1858. 147 

the President's propositioi. would Iiave lieei: true to the uttermost 
Hence, when hereafter I speak of popular sovereignty, I wish to be 
understood as applying what I say to the question of slavery only, 
not to other minor domestic matters of a Territory or a State. 

Does Judge Douglas, when he says that several of the past 
3-ears of his life liave been devoted to the question of "papular 
sovereignty," and. that all the remainder of his life shall be devoted 
tc it, does he mear. to say that he has been devoting his life to se- 
curing to the people of the Territories the right to exclude slavery 
from the Territories? If he means so tc say, he means to deceive; 
l)ecause he and every one knows that the decision of the Supreme 
Court, which he approves and makes especial ground of attack u|)on 
me for disapproving, forbids the people of a Territory to exclude 
slavery. This covers the whole ground, from the settlement of a 
Territory till it reaches the degree of maturity entitling it to form a 
State Constitution. Sc far as all that ground is concerned, the Judge 
is not sustaining popular sovereignty, br t absolutely opposing it. He 
sustains the decision whicL declares that the popular will of the 
Territories has no constitutional power to exclude slavery during 
I heir Territorial existence. This being sc the period of time from 
the first settlement of a Territory till it reaches the point of forming 
a State Constitution is not the thing that the Judge has fought for 
or is fighting for : but on the contrary, he has fought for, and is 
fighting for, the thing that annihilates and crushes out that same 
popular sovereignty . 

Well, sc much being disposed of, what is left? Why, he is con- 
tending for the right of the people, when they come to make a State 
Constitution, to make it for themselves, and precisely as best suits 
themselves. I sa}' again, that is Quixotic I defy contradiction 
when I declare that the Judge can find no one to oppose him on 
that proposition. I repeat, there is nobody opposing that proposi- 
tion on jn-iiiriplc. Let me not be misunderstood I know that/ with 
reference to the Lecompton Constitution, I ma}' be misunderstood ; 
but when you understand me correctly, my proposition Avill be true 
and accurate. Nobody is opposing, or has opposed the right of the 
people, when they form a Constitution, to form it for themselves. 
3lr. Buchanan and his friends have net done it ; they, too, as well 
as the Republicans and the Anti-Lecompton Democrats, have not 
done it ; but on the contrary, they together have insisted on the 
right of the people to form a Constitution for themselves. The dif- 
ference between the Buchanan men on the one hand and the Doug- 



148 SPEECH OF LINCOLN. 

las men ainl the Kepublicans on the othor, has not hvvn on a qiu'S- 
tion itf principle, but on a question of fact. 

The dispute was upon the question of fact, whether the Lecomp- 
ton t'onstitulion had lieen fairly formed by the people or not. .Mr. 
Huciiaiian anil his friends have not contendeil for the contrary priii- 
riple any more than the Douglas men or the Kepublicans. They 
have insisted that whatever of small irregularities existed in getting 
up tlie lii'coniptoii Constitution were such as iiappen in the settle 
nii'Ml of all ni'W Ti-rritorics. Thecjuestion was, Was it a faircniaii;! 
tion of the people? It was a question of fact, and not of principle. 
As to the principle, all wi-re agreed. Judge Douglas voted with 
the Kepultlicans ui)on that matter of fact. 

He and the}', by their voices and votes, denied that it was a fair 
emanation of the people. The Administration affirmed that it was. 
\N'ith respect to the evidence bearing upon that (juestion of fact. 1 
readily agree that Judge Douglas and the Republicans had the right 
on their si<ie. and that tlu' Aflniinistration was wrong. Uiit I state 
again that, as a matter of principle, there is no dispute upon the 
right of a people in a Territory, merging into a State, to form a 
Constitution for themselves without outside interference from any 
quarter. This being so, what is Judge Douglas going to spend his 
jitf t'.pi? Is he going to spend his life in maintaining a principle 
that nobody on earth opposes? l)oc> lu' exptct to stand up in ma- 
jestic dignity, and go through his ajxif/iensis and become a god. in 
the maintaining (>f a principle whicii neither man nor mouse in ail 
(lod's creation is opposing? 

Now something in regard to the Lecompton Constitution more 
specially ; for I pass from this other question of popular sover- 
eignty as the most arrant humbug that has ever been attempted on 
an intelligent community. 

WHO DKFE.VTED THE LECO.MPTON COXSTlTI'TloN ? 

As to tlu' Lecoujptoii Constitution. 1 ha\i' already said that on 
the (juestion of fact as to whether it was a fair emanation of the 
people or n«»t. Judge Doiii^las, with tlie Hcpublicans ami some 
Am<Ticans, had greatly the argument against tin* Administration ; 
and while I repeat this, I wish to know what there is in the op|)o- 
silionof Judge j)ouglas to the liccompton Constitution that entitles 
him to I »e considered the only opponent to it, — as being parrjcal 
hill, tlie very //MMi/ra/K/KT of that opposition. I agree to the right- 



SPRINGFIELD, ILL., JULY 17, 1858. 149 

fulness of his opposition. He in the Senate and his class of men 
there formed tlie number M/ff, and no more. In the House of Rep- 
resentatives his class of men — tlie Anti-Lecompton Democrats — 
formed a number of about twenty. It took one hundred and twenty 
to defeat the measure, against one hundred and twelve. Of the 
votes of that one hundred and twenty, Judge Douglas's friends fur- 
nislied twenty, to add to which there were six Americans and ninety- 
four Republicans. I do not say that I am precisely accurate in 
their numbers, but I am sufficientl}' so for any use I am making 
of it. 

Why is it that twenty shall be entitled to all the credit of doing 
that work, and the hundred none of it? Wh}^, if, as Judge Douglas 
says, the honor is to be divided and due credit is to be given to 
other parties, why is just so much given as is consonant with the 
wishes, the interests, and advancement of the tweut}'? My under- 
standing is, when a common job is done, or a common enterprise 
prosecuted, if I put in five dollars to 3'our one, I have a right to 
take out five dollars to your one. But he does not so understand it. 
He declares the dividend of credit for defeating Lecompton upon a 
basis which seems unprecedented and incomprehensiljle. 

Let us see. Lecompton in the raw was defeated. It afterward 
took a sort of cooked-up shape, and was passed in the English bill. 
It is said by the Judge that the defeat was a good and proper thing. 
If it was a good thing, why is he entitled to more credit than others 
for the performance of that good act, unless there was something in 
the antecedents of the Republicans that might induce every one to 
expect them to join in that good work, and at the same time some- 
thing leading them to doubt thnt he would? Does he place his su- 
perior claim to credit, on the ground that he performed a good act 
which was never expected of him ? 

He says I have a proneness for quoting Scripture. If I should 
do so now, it occurs that perhaps he places himself somewhat upon 
the ground of the parable of the lost sheep which went astray upon 
the mountains, and when the owner of the hundred sheep found the 
one that was lost, and threw it upon his shoulders and came home 
rejoicing, it was said that there was more rejoicing over the one 
sheep that was lost and had been found, than over the ninety and 
nine in the fold. The application is made by the Saviour in this 
parable, thus : "Verily, I say unto you, there is more rejoicing in 
heaven over one sinner that repenteth, than over ninety and nine 
just persons that need no repentance." 



150 SPEECH OK I.INCKLN. 

And now. if tlu* JiuI^l' t-laims tin* U'lietit of this parable, Jet him 
rr/iiiit. lift liiuj u«>l I'onie up here and say : "I um the oal}' just 
person; and you are tiie ninety-nine sinners ! " /'<p,„f,ina- before 
/•nyivnuss is a provision of the Christian system, and on that condi- 
tion alone will ihe UepiiMicans f»rant him forjiiveness 

ll«»w will lie prove that we have ever ot-ciipied a dilferent position 
in regard to the Lei-ompton Constitution or any prineipk' in it? Hi- 
says he did not make his opposition on the <rrounil as to whether it 
was a Free or a Slave Constitution, and he would have you understand 
that the Uepublieans made tli<ir opposition because it ultimately be- 
came a Slave Constitution. To make jjroof in fav(n" of himself on 
this point, he reminds us that he opposed liccompton liefore tiie 
vote was taken declaruijj: whether the State was to be Tree or Slave. 
Mut he forgets to say that our Kepnolican Senator, Trumbull, made 
a speech against Lecompton even before lie did. 

Why did he oppose it? I'artly. as he declares, because the mem- 
bers of the Convention who frameil it were not fairly elected by the 
people; that the people were not allowcil to vote unless they had 
been registered; and that the people of whole counties, in some in- 
stances, were not registered. For these reasons he declares the 
cf)nstitution was not an emanation, in any true sense, from the peo- 
ple. He also has an additional objection as to the mode of siili- 
mitting the Constitution back to the people, liut bearing on tlie 
(juestion of whether the delegates were fairly elected, a speech of 
ids, made .something more than twelve months ago. from this stand, 
iK'comes iraporUint. It was made a little while before the election 
of the delegates who made Lecompton. In that speech he dci-lared 
there was every reason to hope and believe the election would be 
fair; and if any one faiU-d to vote, it would be his own (•ul|)al»le 
fault. 

I. a few days after, made a sort of answer to that s|)eecli In 
that answer I made, substantially, the very argument with which 
he combated his Lecompton adversaries in the Ssaate last winter. 
I iMtinted to the facts that the pi-ople eoidd not vote without i)eing 
registi-red, and that the time for registering had gone by. I com- 
mented on it as wonilcrful that .Judge Douglas eould lie ignorant 
of lliese facts, which «'verv one else in the nation so well knew. 

I now pass from popidar sovereignly and lieconipton I may 
have occasion to refei to (»ne or l)Oth. 

When he w.as preparing his plan of campaign. Napoleon-like, in 
New York, as ap]>e.irs l»y two spj'cches I have heard him deliver 



SPRINGFIELD, ILL., JULY 17, 1858. 151 

since his arrival in Illinois, he gave special attention to a speech of 
mine, delivered here on the 16th of June last. He sa3's that he 
carefully read that speech. He told us that at Chicaijo a week ago 
last night, and he repeated it at Bloomington last night. D()iil)tles>:, 
he repeated it again to-day, thougli I did not hear him. In the two 
first places — Chicago and liloomington — I heard hini ; to-day I 
did not. He said he had carefully examined that speech, — wlini, 
he did not sa}' ; but there is no reasonable doubt it was when he 
was in New York preparing his plan of campaign. I am glad he 
did read it carefully. . He says it was evidently prepared with great 
care. I freely admit it was prepared with care. I claim not to be 
more free from errors than others, — perhaps scarcely so much ; but 
I was very careful not to put anything in that speech as a matter 
of fact, or make any inferences which did not appedr to me to be 
true and fully warrantable. If I had made any mistake, I was 
willing to be corrected ; if I had drawn any inference in regard to 
Judge Douglas, or any one else, which was not warranted, I was 
fully prepared to modify it as soon as discovered. I planted myself 
upon the truth and the truth only, so far as I knew it, or could be 
brought to know it. 

THE "HOUSE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF" SPEECH, 

Having made that speech with the most kindly feelings toward 
Judge Douglas, as manifested therein, I was gratified when I 
found that he had carefully examined it, and had detected no error 
of fact, nor any inference against him, nor any misrepresentations, 
of which he thought fit to complain. In neither of the two speeches 
I have mentioned did he make any such complaint. I will thank 
any one who will inform me that he, in his speech to-day, pointed 
out anything I had stated respecting him, as being erroneous. I 
presume there is no such thing. I have reason to be gratified that 
the care and caution used in that speech left it so that he, most of 
all others interested in discovering error, has not been able to point 
out one thing against him which he could say was wrong. 

He seizes upon the doctrines he supposes to be included in that 
speech, and declares that upon them will turn the issues of this 
campaign. He then quotes, or attempts to quote, from my speech. 
I will not say that he wilfully misquotes, but he does fail to quote 
accurately'. His attempt at quoting is from a passage which 1 be- 
lieve I can quote accurately from memory. I shall make the quo- 
tation now, with some comments upon it, as I have already said, in 



l.-)_' SPEECH OF l.lNi'ol.N. 

order that the Judge shall lio left entiivly without i-xcusi' for mis- 
represent ing lue. I do so now, as 1 Iiojk-, for the last tiiue. 

1 ilo this ill great eaution in order that if he repeats his misrep- 
resentation it shall be plain to all that he does so wilfully. If, after 
all. he still persists, I shall be compelled to reconstruct the course I 
have marked out for myself, and draw upon such humble resources 
as I have, for a new course, better suited to the real exigencies of 
the case. I set out in this campaign with the intention of conduct- 
ing it strictly as a gentleman, in substance at least, if not in the 
outside polish. The latter I shall never be ; but that which consti- 
tutes the inside of a gentleman I hope I understand, and am not less 
inclined to practice than others. It was juy |)iii|M>se and expecta- 
tion that this canvass would be conducted upon principle, and with 
fairness on both sides, and it shall not be my fault if this pur- 
pose and expectation shall be given up. 

lie charges, in sul>stance, that I invite a war of sections; that I 
propose all the local institutions of the dillerent States shall be- 
come consolidated and uniform. What is there in the language of 
that speech which expresses such purpose or bears such construc- 
tion? I have again and again said that I would not enter into any 
of the States to disturb the institution of slaver)'. Judge Douglas 
said, at IJlooraington, that I used language most able and ingenious 
for concealing what I really meant; and that while I had protested 
against entering into the Slave States, I nevertheless did mean to go 
on the banks of the Ohio and throw missiles into Kentucky, to dis- 
turb them in their domestic institutions. 

I said in that speech, and I meant no more, that the institution 
of slavery ought to be i)laccd in the very attitude where the framei-s 
of this Government placeil it and left it. I do not understand that 
the franiers of our Tonstitutiou left the people of the Free States in 
the altitude of firing bombs or shells into the Slave States. 1 was 
not using that passage for the i)urpose for which lie infers I did use 
it I said: — 

• W'u are now fur advanced into the (Iftii yearsinci- a iM.licy wascreuled 
for llie avowed object and with tlie coiitident promise of puttiiij,' an end to 
slavery affitatiun. I'nder the oiM-ration of that [Hilicy llial a^'itation has 
nut only nut ceased, but has constantly aii^'meiited. In my opinion it will 
nf»t rease till a erisis sluill have been reached and passe«l, ' A liou.se di- 
vided against itscir cainiiit stand.' I believe that this (Jovernment cannot 
endure |MTinanently half .'^lave and half Free ; ii will become all one thiiijr 
or all Iheuiher. Either the op|Minents of slavery will arresl the further 
spn-ad of it. and jilae.- it wh.-re the public mind shall rest in the belief 



SPRINGFIELD, ILL., JULY 17, 1858. 15B 

that it is in the course of ultimate e.xtinction, or its arlvocates will push it 
forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as 
new, Norlli as well as South." 

Now yoii all see, from that quotution, I did not express my iciak 
on anything. In that passage I indicated no wish or purpose of my 
own; I simp]}' expressed my expectation. Cannot the Judge per- 
ceive a distinction between a pnrpoHc and an expectation f I have 
often expressed an expectation to die, ])ut I have never expressed a 
7//.s7/ to die. I said at Chicago, and now repeat, that I am quite 
aware this Government has endured, half Slave and half Free, for 
eighty-two years. I understand that little bit of history. I ex- 
pressed the opinion I did because I perceived — or thought I per- 
ceived — a new set of causes introduced. I did say at Chicago, in 
m}' speech there, that I do wish to see the spread of shiver}' arrested, 
and to see it placed where the public mind shall rest in the belief 
that it is in the course of ultimate extinction. I said that because 
I supposed, when the public mind shall rest in that belief, we shall 
have peace on the slaver}' question. I have 1)elieved — and now 
believe — the public mind did rest in that Ijelief up to the intro- 
duction of the Nebraska bill. 

Although I have ever been opposed to slavery, so far I rested in 
the hope and belief that it was in the course of ultimate extinction. 
For that reason it had been a minor question with me. I might 
have been mistaken; but I had believed, and now believe, that the 
whole public mind, that is, the mind of the great majority, had 
rested in that belief up to the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. 
But upon that event I became convinced that either I had been 
resting in a delusion, or the institution was being placed on a new 
basis, — a basis for making it perpetual, national, and universal. 
Subsequent events have greatly confirmed me in that belief. I 
believe that bill to be the beginning of a conspiracy for that pur- 
pose. So believing, I have since then considered that question a 
paramount one. So believing, I think the public mind will never 
rest till the power of Congress to restrict the spread of it shall again 
be acknowledged and exercised on the one hand, or, on the other, 
all resistance be entirely crushed out. I have expressed that opin- 
ion, and I entertain it to-night. It is denied that there is any 
tendency to the nationalization of slavery in these States. 

Mr. Brooks, of South Carolina, in one of his speeches, when they 
were presenting liim canes, silvi-r i)hite. gold pitchers, and the like, 
for assaulting Senator Sumner, distinctly affirmed his opinion that 



i:, I SPEKCII nV LINCOLN. 

when this Constitution was formed, it was the belief of no man that 
shivery would last to the present day. He said, whui 1 thinU. that 
the framcrs of our Constitution placed the institution of slavery 
where the public mind rested in the hope that it was in the course 
of ultimate extinction. Uni lu' went on to .s;iy that tln' uu-ii of the 
|n»st'nt a«ii', by tlu-ir i'X|n'iirnci', have ln'Ciinu' wisi-r than the frain- 
ers of tlu' C'oiistitiitioii, and the invention of the eolton gin had 
luade the iHTpetiiily of slavery a neces.sity in this country. 

As another piere of evideiue tentliny; to this same point : Quite 
recently, in Vir<finia. a man —the owner of slaves — n)ade a will 
providing that after his de.ith certain of his slaves should have 
their freedom if Ihey should so clioo.se, and go to liilu'iia. rather 
than remain in slavery. They eho-e to he liiteraled. Mut the per- 
sons to whom they wouM descend as pro|)erty claimed them as 
slaves. A suit was iustituti'd, which llnally came to the Supreme 
Cotirl of Viriiinia. and was therein di-cided against the slaves upon 
the ground that a negro cannot make a choice; that they had no 
legal pow«'r to choose, — could not i)erform the condition upon which 
their freedom depended. 

1 do not mention this with any purpose of criticising it, but to 
coniu'ct it with the arguments as atfording additional evidence of the 
change of sentinu'ut upon this (juestion of slavery in the direction 
(»f making it perpetual and national. I argue now as 1 did before, 
that there is such a tendency; and I am backed, not nu-rely l)y the 
facts, bnt by the open conrfssinii in the Slave States. 

And now as to the Judge's inference that because I wish to see 
slavery placed in the course of ultimate extinction, placed where 
our fathers originally placed it, — I wish to annihilate the State 
Legislatures, to force cotton to grow upon the tops of the Green 
Mountains, to freeze ice in Florida, to cut lumber on the broad Illi- 
nois prairies, - that I am in f.ivor of all these ridiculous and im- 
possible things. 

It seems to me it is a complete answer to all this to ask if, when 
Congress did have the fashion of restricting slavt-ry from Free Ter- 
ritory ; when conrts did liaNc the fashion of deciding that taking a 
hla\e into a fife coniilry made him free. I say it is a sufficient 
answer to ask if any of this ridiculous nonsense about consolidation 
and uniformity did actually follow. Who heard of any such thing 
b«'cause of the ordinance of S? ? because of the Missouri Restric- 
tion ? iK'caui-e of the numerous ctuirt decisions of that character ? 



/ 



SPRINGFIELD, ILL., Jl'LV IT. l^-VS. 155 



SUPREME COURT DECISION NOT FINAL. 



Now, as to the Dred Scott decision ; for upon that he makes his 
last point at me. He boldly takes ground in favor of that decision. 

This is one half of the onslaught, and one third of the entire 
plan of the campaign. I am opposed to that decision in a certain 
sense, hut not in the sense which he puts on it. I say that in so 
far as it decided in favor of Dred Scott's master, and against Dred 
Scott and his family. I do not propose to disturb or resist the 
decision. 

I never have proposed to do any such thing. I think that in 
respect for judicial authority my humble history would not suffer in 
comparison with that of Judge Douglas. He would have the citi- 
zen conform his vote to that decision ; the member of Congress, his ; 
the President, his use of the veto power. He would make it a rule 
of political action for the people and all the departments of the 
Government. I would not. By resisting it as a political rule, I 
disturb no right of property, create no disorder, excite no mobs. 

When he spoke at Chicago, on Friday evening of last week, he 
made this same point upon me. On Saturday evening I replied, 
and reminded him of a Supreme Court decision which he opposed 
for at least several years. Last night, at Bloomington, he took 
some notice of that reply, but entirely forgot to remember that part 
of it. 

He renews his onslaught upon me, forgetting to remember that 
I have tiu"ned the tables against himself on that ver}' point. I 
renew the effort to draw his attention to it. I wish to stand erect 
before the country, as well as Judge Douglas, on this question of 
judicial authority ; and therefore I add something to the authority 
in favor of my own position. I wish to show that I am sustained 
by authority, in addition to that heretofore presented. I do not 
expect to convince the Judge. It is part of the plan of his cam- 
paign, and he will cling to it with a desperate grip. Even turn it 
upon him. — the sharj) point against him, and gaff him through, — 
he will still cling to it till he can invent some new dodge to take the 
place of it. 

In public speaking it is tedious reading from documents : but I 
must beg to indulge the practice to a limited extent. I shall read 
from a letter written by Mr. Jefferson in 1820. and now to be 
found in the seventh A-olume of his Correspondence, at page 177. 



15G SPEECH or LINCOLN. 

It seems lie had Ihh'Ii presented l>y a geutleman of Uie iuime of 
Jurvis with a liook. or essay, or periodieal, called the " Hepulili- 
ean/' and he was writin*; in aeknowledfjiuent of the present, and 
notinjj some of its contents. After expressing; the hoj)e that the 
work will protlnee a favorable elTeel upon the minds of the yount;, 
he proceeds to say: — 

•• Tliiit it will liavc this tiMulency may be pxpoctcil, and for that reason 
I feel an uri?t'ney to note what I dci-m an error in it, the more n'quiring 
notice as your opiiiiim is stn'nirtln'iicd by that of many othi-rs. You seem, 
in paL'e 84 ami 1 IS, to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all consti- 
tutional questions, a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place 
ut under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other mon, 
and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, 
and the privilege of their corps. 'I'luir' in.i\iin is, ' llmi ji:iUrin ixt n'liji/iiirc 
jitrii*ilii-tt'>/i< III : ' and their power is the more dangerous as they are ia oSce for 
life, and not responsible, as the ether functionaries are, to the elective control. 
The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that, to whatever 
hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become 
despots. It lias more wi.scly madi' all the departments co-equal and eu- 
s»i\i r>iiru within tlu'msi'lvfs. 

Thus we see the power claimed for the Supreme Court by Judge 
Douglas, Mr. Jefferson holds, would reduce us to the despotism of an 
oligarchy. 

Ntiw, I have said no more than this, — in fact, never (juitc so 
much as this; at least I am sustained by Mr. JelTerson. 

Let us go a little further. You remember we once bad a Na- 
tional Bank. Some one owed the bank a del)t; he was sued, and 
S(»u«:ht to avoid payment on the ground that the bank was unconsti- 
tutional. The case went to the Supn-me Court, and therein it was 
decided that the bank was constitutional. The whole Democratic 
party revolted against that decision. General Jackson himself as- 
serted that he, as President, would not be bound to hold a National 
Bank to be constitutional, even though the Court had decided it to 
be 80. He fell in precisely with the view of Mr. Jefferson, and acted 
upon it under his official oath, in vetoing a charter for a National 
Bank. The declaration that Congress does not possess this constitu- 
tional power to charter a bank lias gone into the Democratic plat- 
form, at their National ('«)nventions, and was brought forw.ird and 
rcafliruHMl in tin-ir last Convention at Cincinnati. They have con- 
ti-nded for that d<'<-hiration, in the very teeth of the Supreme 
Court, for iiion' tiian a (piartcr of a century. In fact, they have 
reduced the decision to an absolute nullity. That decision. I repeat, 



SPRINGFIELD, ILL., JULY 17, 1858. 157 

is repudiated in the Cincinnati platform ; and still, as if to show 
that effrontery can go no farther Judge Douglas vaunts in the very 
speeches in which he denounces me for opposing the Dred Scott de- 
cision that he stands on the Cincinnati platform. 

Now, I wish to know what the Judge can charge upon me, with 
respect to the decisions of the Supreme Court, which does not lie 
in all its length, breadth, and proportions at his own door. Tiie 
plain truth is simply this: Judge Douglas is for Supreme Court 
decisions when he likes; and against .them when he does not like 
them. lie is for the Dred Scott decision because it tends to 
nationalize slavery; because it is a part of the original combination 
for that object. It so happens, singularly enough, that I never 
stood opposed to a decision of the Supreme Court till tliis. On 
the contrar}', I have no recollection that he was ever particularly in 
favor of one till this. He never was in favor of any, nor opposed 
to any, till the present one, which helps to nationalize slavery. 

Free men of Sangamon, free men of Illinois, free men every- 
where, judge ye between him and me upon this issue. 

He says this Dred Scott case is a very small matter at most, 
— that it has no practical effect ; that at best, or rather, I suppose, 
at worst, it is but an abstraction. I submit that the proposition that 
the thing which determines whether a man is free or a slave is 
rather concrete, than abstract. I think you would conclude that it 
was, if your liberty depended upon it, and so would Judge Douglas, 
if his liberty depended upon it. But suppose it was on the question 
of spreading slavery over the new Territories that he considers it as 
being merely an absti-act matter, and one of no practical importance. 
How has the planting of slavery in new countries always been effected? 
It has now been decided that slaA'er}* cannot be kept out of our new 
Territories by any legal means. In what do our new Territories now 
diflfer in this respect from the old Colonies when slavery was first 
planted within them? It was planted, as Mr. Clay once declared, and 
as history proves true, by individual men, in spite of the wishes of 
the people; the Mother Government refusing to prohibit it, and with- 
holding from the people of the Colonies the authority' to prohibit it 
for themselves. Mr. Clay says this was one of the great and just 
causes of complaint against Great Britain by the Colonies, and the 
best apology we can now make for having the institution amongst us. 
In that precise condition our Nebraska politicians have at last suc- 
ceeded in placing our own new Territories; the Government will not 
prohibit slavery within them, nor allow the people to prohibit it. 



158 SPKKCH OF LINCOLN, 

I defy any man to find any difference between the policy which 
originally planted slavery in these Colonies and that policy which 
now prevails in our new Territories. If it tlors not ;_m) into tlu'in, 
it is oiilv lifcaiist' no iiitliv iduiil wislu.s il to «;o. 

The JiKlgt' imiulgt'tl himsolf doubtless to-day with the (juestion 
us to what I am goinj; to ilo with or about tl»e Dred Scott decision. 
Well, .Iud|i»'. will you please tell me what you did about the bank 
decision? Will you not graciously allow us to do with the Dred 
Scott decision precisely as you did with the bank decision ? You 
succeeded in breaking down the moral effect of that decision : did 
you find it necessary to amend the Constitution, or to set up a court 
of negroes in order to do it ? 

A DKATII-UKl) SCENE. 

There is one (jllicr point. Judge Douj^las has a very alToctionate 
leaning toward the Americans and Old Whigs. J^ast evening, in a 
sort of weeping tone, he described to us a death-bed scene. He had 
been called to the side of Mr. Clay, in his last moments, in order 
that the genius c»f *' popular .sovereignty ' might duly descend from 
the dying man and settle upon him, the living and most worthy suc- 
cessor. He could do no less than promise that lu' would di'votc tlic 
remainder of his life to " i)opular sovereignty:" and then the great 
statesman departs in peace, liy this part of the " jjlan of the cam- 
paign" the Judge has evidently promised himself that tears shall be 
ilrawn down the checks of all (^Id Whigs, as large as half-grown 
apples. 

.^lr. Webster, too, was mentioned; but it did not quite come to 
a death-bed scene as to him. It would be amusing, if it were not 
disgusting, to see how quick these compromise-breakers administer 
on tlu' political etre<'ts of their dead ad\ I'rsaries, trumping up 
claims never before heard of, and dividing the assets among them- 
selves. If I shouM be found (lead tomorrow in(»niing. nothing but 
my insignificance could i»revent a speech being madt' on my author 
ity, iM'fore the end of next week. It so happens that in thai 
•'|)opuhir sovereignty" with which .^lr. Clay was identilicd, the 
Missouri Compr»)mi.se was ex|)ressly reserved; and it was a tilth' 
singular if .>Ir. Clay cast his manth' upon .Judge Pouglas on pur- 
|x>8e to liave that Compromise repealc(l. 

Again, tlu' Judge did not keej* faith with Mr. Clay when he lirst 
brought in his Nebraska bill. lie left the Missouri Compromise un- 
reiKjaled, and in his report accompanying the bill he told the 



SPRINGFIELD, ILL., JULY 17, 18.18. 159 

world he did it on purpose. TLie manes of Mr. Clay must liuve 
l)C'en in great agony till thirty days later, when "popular sover- 
eignty " stood forth in all its glory. 

SHALL THE DECLARATION BE AMEXDEP ? 

One more thing. L:ist night Judge Douglas tormented himself 
with horrors about my disi)Osition to make negroes perfectly equal 
with white men in social and political relations. He did not stop to 
show that I have said any such thing, or that it legitimately fol- 
lows from anything I have said, but he rushes on with his assertions. 
I adhere to the Declaration of Independence. If Judge Douglas 
and his friends are not willing to stand by it, let them come up and 
amend it. Let them make it read that all men are created equal 
except negroes. Let us have it decided whether the Declaration 
of Independence, in this blessed year of 1858, shall be thus amended. 

In his construction of the Declaration last year, he said it only 
meant that Americans in America were equal to Englishmen in Eng- 
land. Then, when I pointed out to him that b}' that rule he ex- 
cludes the Germans, the Irish, the Portuguese, and all the other peo- 
ple who have come amongst us since^ the Revolution, he reconstructs 
his construction. In his last speech he tells us it meant Europeans. 
I press him a little further, and ask if it meant to include the Rus- 
sians in Asia; or does he mean to exclude that vast population 
from the principles of our Declaration of Independence ? I expect 
ere long he will introduce another amendment to his definition. He 
is not at all particular. He is satisfied with anything which does 
not endanger the nationalizing of negro slavery. It may draw white 
men down, but it must not lift negroes up. Who shall say, " I am 
the superior, and you are the inferior? " 

My declarations upon this subject of negro slavery may be mis- 
represented, but cannot be misunderstood. I have said that I do 
not understand the Declaration to mean that all men were created 
('({ual in all respects. They arc not our equal in color; but I sup- 
pose that it does mean to declare that all men are equal in some re- 
spects ; they are equal in their right to " life, liberty, and the pur- 
suit of happiness." Certainly the negro is not our ccjual in color, — 
perhaps not in many other respects; still, in the right to put into 
his mouth the bread that his own hands have earned, he is the equal 
of every other man, white or black. In pointing out that more has 
been given you, you ctmnot Ite justified in taking away the little 
which has been given hiui. All I ask for the negro is that if you do 



H;(» SPEKtll (IF LINCOLN. 

not like him. let him alone. If God gave him but little, that little 
let him enjoy. 

\\ lu-ii our ( ioviiimii'iit was rslahli.slH-d wo had lln* iiLstitulioii of 
slavery among us. \\'»- wiit- in a ciTtain .sense compelled to tolerate 
its existence. It was u sort of necessit}'. We had <^oiie through 
our struggle anil secured cnir own independence. Tljc Iranicis of tiie 
Constitution found the institution of slavery amongst their other in- 
stitutions at the time. They fountl that by an etFort to eradicate it 
tliey might lose much of what they had already gained. Tiiey were 
ohliged to l)o\v to the nece.ssity. They gave power to Congress to 
alMilish the slave trade at the end of twent}' years. The}' al.so pro- 
hiltited slavery in the Territories where it did not exist. They did 
what tlu'V could, and yielded to necessity for the rest. I also yield 
to ail which follows from that necessity. Wliat I would most de- 
sire would lie the separation of the white and the black races. 

One more point on this Springficlil s|HC(h wliidi .luilgc Douirlas 
says he has rea<l so carefully. I expressed my belief in the exis- 
tence of a conspiracy to perpetuate and nationalize slavery, 'l did 
not profess to know it, nor do I now. I showed the part Jutige 
Douglas had played in the string of facts constituting to my mind 
the proof of that conspiracy. I showed the j)arts played by others. 

I charged that the people had been deceived into carrying the 
last Presidential election, by the impression that the people of the 
Territories might exclude slavery if they chose, when it was known 
in advance by the conspirators that the court was to decide that 
neither Congress nor the people could so exclude slavery. These 
charges are more distinctly made than anything else in the speech. 

Juilge Douglas has carefully read and re-read that speech. lie 
has not, so far as I know contradicted lhr)se charges. In the two 
spc<Mlics which T heard he certainly did not. On his own tacit ad- 
mission. I renew that charge. I charge him with having been a 
party to that conspiracy and to that deception for the sole purpose 
of nationalizing slavery. 



COKRESPONDENCE. 

The following is the correspondence between the two rival candi- 
dates for the United States Senate: — 

MR. LINCOLN TO MR. DOUGLAS. 

Chicago, III., July 24, 1858. 
Hon. S. A. Douglas. 

My Deak Sir: Will it bo agreeable to you to make an arrangement for 
you and myself to divide time, and address the same audiences the present 
canvass? Mr. Judd, who will hand you this, is authorized to receive your 
answer; and, if agreeable to you, to enter into the terms of such agree- 
ment. Your obedient servant, 

A. Lincoln. 



MR. DOUGLAS TO MR. LINCOLN. 

Chicago, July 34, 1858. 
Hon. A. Lincoln. 

Dear Sir: Your note of this date, in which you inquire if it would be 
agreeable to me to make an arrangement to divide the time and address 
the same audiences during the present canvass, was handed me by Mr. 
Judd. Recent events have interposed difficulties in the way of such an 
arrangement. 

I went to Springfield htst week for the purpose of conferring with the 
Democratic State Central Committee upon the mode of conducting the 
canvass, and with them, and under their advice, made a list of appoint- 
ments covering the entire period until late in October. The people of the 
several localities have been notified of the times and places of the meet- 
ings. Those appointments have all been made for Democratic meetings, 
and arrangements have been made by which the Democratic candidates 
for Congress, for the Legislature, and other offices, will be present and ad- 
dress the people. It is evident, therefore, that these various candidates, in 
connection with myself, will occupy the whole time of the day and even- 
ing, and leave no opportunity for other speeches. 

Besides, there is another consideration which should be kept in mind. 
It has been suggested recently that an arrangement had been made to 
bring out a third candidate for the United States Senate, who, with your- 
self, should canvass the State in opposition to me, with no other purpose 
than to insure ray defeat, by dividing the Democratic party for your bene- 
fit. If I should make this arrangement with you, it is more than probable 
that this other candidate, who has a common object with you, would de- 
sire to become a party to it, and claim the right to speak from the same 
stand; so that he and you, in concert, might be able to take the opening 
and closing speech in every case^ 

11 [161] 



i»;2 COIIRESPONUEXCE. 

1 cannot n-frain from oxpressinj? my surprise, if it was your ori;?inal in- 
tention to invite such an arranj,'i-m<Mit. tliat you should have waited until 
after I had madf my ap|K)intnn'nts, inasmuch as we wen- lioili Iutc in 
Chicajro toj:<'lli<'r for several days after my arrival, and ajrain at Hloomin^'- 
ton, Atlanta, Lincoln, and Spriufrfi'-ld, where it was Wfjj known 1 went for 
the pur|M>si- of consuitinj,' with tin* Stale Central Committee, and aj^reeiuf? 
upon tin- plan of the canipai^'n. 

While, under these circumstances, I do not feel at libf-rty to make any 
nrranj;ements which would «li'prive the Democratic candidates for Con- 
tjri'ss. State ollices, and the Legislature, from i)articipating in the discus- 
sion at tin- various meetings desi'.'nated by the Democratic State Central 
Committee, I will, in order tt) accommodate you us far as it is in my jKiwer 
to do so, take the responsibility of makin-; an arranjrement with you for a 
discussion between us at one prominent jMiint in each Congressional Dis- 
trict in the Slate, except the second and sixth districts, where we have 
both sixjken, and in each of which cases you had the concludinfj; speech. 
If ajj:reeable to you, I will indicate the following places as tho.se most suit- 
able in the several Congrre.ssional Districts at which we should speak, to 
wit: Freeport, Ottawa, fJalesburfr, Quincy, Alton, Jonesboro. and Charles- 
ton. I will confer with you at the earliest convenient opportunity in 
regard to the mode <if con<lucting the debate, the times of meeting at the 
several i)laces, subject to the condition that where ai)i)ointments have al- 
ready been made by the Democratic State Central Committee at any of 
tho.se i)laces, I must insist virion you meeting me at the times sjiecified. , 

Very respectfully, your most obedient servant, 

S. A. DuitiL.\s. 



MR. LINCOLN To MR. IKJUGLAS. 

Sprinckieij), July :,'n, l.S.")S. 
Hon. S. A. DoiiijlitK. 

Dear Sm: Yours of the 21tii in relation to an ariaiigenu nt to divide 
time, and address the same audiences, is received; and, in apology for not 
s«Kjn(;r replying, allow me to say, that when I sat by you at dinner yester- 
day, I was not aware that you had answere<l my note, nor, certainly. t!i;i> 
my own nr)te had been presented to you. An hour aftiT, 1 saw a copy of 
yo\ir answer in the Chicago TiiiuM, ami rejiching home, 1 found the original 
awaiting me. Protesting that your insinuations of attempted unfairne.ss 
on my part are unjust, and with the ho])e that you did not very consider- 
ately make thi-m, I proceed to reply. To your statement that " It has been 
su:;gested, recently, that an arrangement had been made to bring out a 
thir<l candidate for the United Slates Senate, who, with yourself, sh<tuld 
canvass the Stall" in op|)osition to me," etc., I can only say, that such sug- 
gestion must have been made by yourself, for certainly none sudi has been 
made by or to me, or otherwise, to my knowledge. Surely you did not di- 
liherntftn ronrludi-, as you insinuate, that I was expecting ti; draw you into 
an arrjuipemi-nt of terms, t(» be agreed on by yourself, by which a third 
eandiclale and my.self, " in concert, might lie able lo take the opening and 
closing Kp^'ech in every case." 



CORRESPONDENCE. 163 

As to your surprise that I did not sooner make the proposal to divide 
time with you, I can only say. I made it as soon as I resolved to make it. 
I did not know but that such projxisal would come from you; I waited, re- 
spectfully, to see. It may have been well known to you that you went to 
Springfield for the purpose of agreeing on the plan of campaign; but it 
was not so known to me. When your appointments were announced in 
th<.' pai>ers. extending only to the 21st of August. I, for the first time con- 
sidered it certain that you would make no proposal to me, and then re- 
solved that, if my friends concurred. I would make one to you. As soon 
thereafter as I could see and consult with friends satisfactorily. I did make 
the proposal. It did not occur to me that the proposed arrangement could 
derange your plans after the latest of your appointments already made. 
After that, there was. before the election, largely over two months of clear 
time. 

For you to say that we have already spoken at Chicago and Springfield, 
and that on both occasions I had the concluding speech, is hardly a fair 
statement. The truth rather is this: At Chicago, July 9th, you made a 
carefully prepared conclusion on my speech of June 16th. Twenty-four 
hours after, I made a hasty conclusion on yours of the 9th. You had six- 
days to prepare, and concluded on me again at Bloomington on the 16th. 
Twenty-four hours after. I concluded again on you at Springfield. In the 
mean time, you had made another conclusion on me at Springfield, which 
1 did not hear, and of the contents of which I knew nothing when I spoke; 
so that your speech made in daylight, and mine at night, of the 17th, at 
Springfield, were both made in perfect independence of each other. The 
dates of making all these speeches will show, I think, that in the matter 
of time for preparation, the advantage has all been on your side, and that 
none of the external circumstances have stood to my advantage. 

I agree to an arrangement for us to speak at the seven places you have 
named, and at your own times, provided you name the times at once, so 
that I, as well as you. can have to myself the time not covered by the ar- 
rangement. As to the other details. I wish perfect reciprocity and no 
more. I wish as much time as you. and that conclusions shall alternate. 
That is all. Your obedient servant, 

A. LrscoLN. 

P. S. — As matters now stand. I shall be at no more of your exclusive 
meetings; and for about a week from to-day a letter from you will reach 
me at Springfield. A. L. 



MR. DOUGLAS TO MR. LINCOLN. 

Bemext. Piatt Co.. III., July 30, 185S. 

Dear Sir: Your letter dated yesterday, accepting my proposition for a 
joint discussion at one prominent point in each Congressional District, as 
stated in my previous letter, was received this morning. 

The times and places designated are as follows : — 



1G4 ColMiKsl'o.NDKNl'E. 

Ottawa, La Salle Couiily. - - - - Aiipust 21, 1858. 

Fr<'i'|»nrt. Stt'|ilit'iisuii C'liuiitv, . . . . " 27, " 

•luiu-slHiro, L'nitin Countv, - September 15, " 

Charl«-si4)ii. Coles County, " 18, " 

(.iaiesbiir;:. Knox County, October 7, " 

Quincy, A<lanis County, ....." 13, " 

Alton, Mailison County, 1">. 

I a^rree to .\our su;.';restittn tiiat we sliall alternately open and tluse ilie 
iliscussion. I will sjM'ak at Ottawa one hour, you can rei)ly. occupying: an 
liour and a half, and I will tlien follow r«»r half an hour. .\i Kree|M>rt. you 
shall o|M-n the discussion and s|H'ak one hour: I will follow for an hour and 
a half, and you can then re|)ly for half an hour. We will alternate in lik'' 
manner in I'lirh successive jjlace. 

Very respectfully, .\our ol)edieiit servant, 

S. A. Douglas. 
IIo.v. A. Lincoln, Si.rinv'Meld. 111. 



.MK. LIXcol.X To .MR. DOUGLAS. 

Springfield, .Tuly 31, 18.'38. 
Hon. S. A. Douyliiit. 

I)e.\u Sir: Yours of yesterday, naminjr places, times, and terms, l"<>r 
joint discussions between us, was received this morninp. Allhouirii, by 
the terms, as you projxjs*', you take/o«7" openiufrs and closes, to my thru, I 
accede, and thus cIo.se the arrangement. 1 direct this to you at Tlillsboro. 
and shall try to have both your letter and this apjiear in the Jotirtntl :ind 
lit fji«(t r (>{ Monday morninjr. 

Your obedient .servant, A. Lincoln. 




THE DOUGLAS MONUMENT. 

Cr«ct«d In Chicago, upon the bank of Lako Michigan, on the spot which Judge Douglas 

had reaerved for hia future home. The atatue waa executed by Leonard Volk. 



FIRST JOINT DEBATE, AT OTTAWA, 

August 21, 1858. 
MK. DOUGLAS'S SPEECH. 

Ladies and Gentlemen: I appear before you to-day for the 
purpose of discussiug the leaduig political topics which now agitate 
the public mind. By an arrangement between Mr. Lincoln antl my- 
self, we are present here to-day for the purpose of having a joint 
discussion, as the representatives of the two great political parties 
of the State and Union, upon the principles in issue between those 
parties, and this vast concourse of people shows the deep feeling 
which pei'vades the public mind in regard to the questions divid- 
ing us. 

Prior to 1854 this country was divided into two great political 
parties, known as the Whig and Democratic parties. Both were 
national and patriotic, advocating principles that were universal in 
their application. An Old Line Whig could proclaim his principles 
in Louisiana and Massachusetts alike. Whig principles had no 
boundary sectional line; they were not limited by the Ohio River, 
nor by the Potomac, nor by the line of the Free and Slave States ; 
but applied and were proclaimed wherever the Constitution ruled or 
the American flag waved over the American soil. So it was, and so 
it is with the great Democratic party, which, from the days of Jef- 
ferson until this period, has proven itself to be the historic party of 
this nation. While the Whig and Democratic parties differed in 
regard to a bank, the tariff', distribution, the specie circular, and 
the sub-treasury, they agreed on the great slavery question which 
now agitates the Union. I say that the Whig part}' and the Demo- 
cratic party agreed on this slavery question, while they differed on 
those matters of expediency to which I have referred. The Whig 
party and the Democratic party jointly adopted the Compromise 
measures of 1850 as the basis of a proper and just solution of this 
slavery question in all its forms. Clay was the great leader, with 
Webster on his right and Cass on his left, and sustained b}' the 
patriots in the Whig and Democratic ranks who had devised and 
enacted the Compromise measures of 1850. 

[165] 



Ititj OTTAWA DKISATK. AUGUST 21. 1808. 

In 1851 tlu- Wbiy: parly ami tht- Democratic piirty uniti'd in 
Illinois in adopting rcsolntions indtirsinj; ami approving the princi- 
ples »)f the Compromise measures of ISoU, as liie proper adjustment 
of that question. In 1852, when the Whig party assembled in Con- 
vention at Baltimore for the j)urpose of n<»minating a candidate for 
the Presidency, the fu-st thing it did was to declare the Compromise 
measures of 1850, in substance and in priiu-iple, a snital>le adjust- 
ment of that (piestion. [Here the speaker was interrupted by loud 
and long-continued applause.] ^ly friends, silence will be more 
acceptalde to me in the discussion of these questions than applause. 
I desire to address myself to your juilgment, your understanding, 
and your consciences, and not to your passions or your enthusiasm. 
When the Democratic Convention assembled in Baltimore in the 
same year, for the purpose of nominating a Democratic candidate 
for the Presidency, it also adopted the Compromise measures of 
1850 as the basis of Democratic action. Tims you see that up to 
1853-54, the Whig party and the Democratic party both stood on 
the same platform with regard to the slavery question. That plat- 
form was the right of the people of each State and each Territory to 
decide their local and domestic institutions for themselves, subject 
only to the Federal Constitution. 

During the session of Congress of 1853-'54, I introduced into 
the Senate of the United States a bill to organize the Territories of 
Kansas and Nebraska on that principle which had been adopted in 
the Compromise measures of 1850, approved b}' the Whig party and 
the Democratic party in Illinois in 1851, and indorsed by the Whig 
party and the Democratic party in National Convention in 1852. 
In order that there might be no misunderstanding in relation to the 
principle involved in the Kansas and Nebraska Itill. I put forth the 
true intent ami mi'Muing of the A'-t in these words: "It is the true 
intent and meaning of this Act not to legislate slavery into any 
State or Territory, or to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the peo- 
ple thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic insti- 
tutions in their own way, subject only to the Federal Constitution." 
Thus you see that u|) to 185 1, when the Kansas and Nel)raska bill 
was l)rought into Congress for the i)urpose of carrying out the prin- 
ciph's which both parties had up to that time indorsed and approved, 
tlien' had been no division in this country in regard to that principle 
I'Xcept the opposition of the Abolitioidsts. In the House of Kep- 
resentntives of the Illinois Legislature, upon a resolution asserting 
that principle, every Whig and every Democrat in the House voled 



DOUGLAS. 167 

in the affirmative, and only four men voted against it, and those 
/"our were Old Line Abolitionists. 

In 1S54, Mr. Abraham Lincoln and Mr. Trumbull entered into 
an arrangement, one with the other, and each witii his respective 
friends, to dissolve the old Whig party on the one hand, and to 
dissolve the old Democratic part}^ on the other, and to connect the 
members of both into an Abolition party, under the name and dis- 
guise of a Republican party. The terms of that arrangement be- 
tween Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Trumbull have been published to the 
world by Mr. Lincoln's special friend, James H. Matheny, Esq., 
and they were, that Lincoln should have Shields's place in the 
United Stiites Senate, which was then about to become vacant, and 
that Trumbull should have my seat when my term expired. Lin- 
coln went to work to Abolitionize the old Whig party all over the 
State, pretending that he was then as good a Whig as ever; and 
Trumbull went to work in his part of the State preaching Abolition- 
ism in its milder and lighter form, and trjing to Abolitionize the 
Democratic party, and bring old Democrats handcuffed and bound 
hand and foot into the Abolition camp. 

In pursuance of the arrangement, the parties met at Springfield 
in October, 1854, and proclaimed their new platform. Lincoln was 
to bring into the Aljolition camp the Old Line Whigs, and transfe)- 
them over to Giddings, Chase, Fred Douglass, and Parson Lovejoy, 
who were ready to receive them and christen them in their new faith. 
They laid down on that occasion a platform for their new Republi- 
can part}-, which was to be thus constructed. I have the resolutions 
of their State Convention then held, which was the first mass State 
Convention ever held in Illinois by the Black Republican party, and 
I now hold them in my hands, and will read a part of them, and 
cause the others to be printed. Here are the most important and 
material resolutions of this Abolition platform: — 

"1 Resolved, That Ave believe this truth to be self-evident, that wlien 
parties become subversive of the ends for which they are established, or 
incapable of restoring tlie Governmenl to the true prniciples of the Con- 
stitution, it is the right and dut}' of the people to dissolve the political 
bands by which they may have been connected therewith, and to organize 
new parties, upon sucli principles and with such views as the circum- 
stances and exigencies of the nation may demand. 

"2. Resolved, That the times imperatively demand the reorganization of 
parties, and, repudiating all previous party attachments, names, and pre- 
dilections, we unite our.selves together in defense of the liberty and Con- 
stitution of the country, and will hereafter co-operate as the Republican 



1«;6 OTIAWA DEBATE. AUGUST 21. 1H.'J8. 

partv, i.K'u};«'«l to lln- accoin|ilisluniiil «»f tin- ftillowiii-r |»ur|K»s(s: Tn briii^' 
thi' ndininist ration of the (Mivj-riiini-eit back lo tin- control of lirsl principles: 
to restore Nebraska and Kansas lo the [Mjsition of Free Territories, tliat, as 
the Ct>nstitution of the United States vests in the States, and not in C'on- 
{jress, the jMiwer to lejjislate for the extradition of fuf^itives from labor, to 
rt'iM-al an«l entirely abro<:ate the Fu<ritive-Sla\e law; to restrict slavery to 
th«»se States in which it exists; to prohibit the admission of any more Slave 
States into the Union: to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia; to 
exclude slavery from all the Territories over which the (Jeneral (Jovern- 
ment has exclusive jurisdiction; and to resist the acquirement of any mt)re 
Territories, unless the practice of slavery therein forever shall have been 
prohibited. 

'•;{. RiMttlrnl, That in furtiierance of these i)rinciples we will use such 
C'onstitution.-kl and l:iwful means as shall seem bi'st adapti'<| to tiieir ac- 
com|>lishmeiit, and that we will supi)ort no man for oflice, under the 
(Ji-neral or State tiovernment, who is nt»l positively and fully committed 
to the supi)ort of these principles, and whose personal character aiiil con- 
duct is not a ■ruarantee that he is reliable, and who shall not have abjured 
ohl party allefriance and ties." 

Now, <;tMitlemen, your Black Rfpiil)licans have cheered ever}' one 
<»f those propositions, and yet T venture to say that you canuot get 
Mr. Lincoln to conic out and say that he is now in favor of each one 
of tlicin. That tliest' j)ropositions, one and all, constitute the plat- 
form of tile Hlack Repulilican party of this day, T have no 
doul)t; and when ^on were not aware for what jjurpose I was read- 
ing them, your lilack HepiiMicans cheered them as <2;ood Hhick 
Republican doctrines. My object in reading these resolutions was 
to put the question to Abraham Lincoln this day, whether he now 
stands and will stand by each article in that creed and carry it out. 
I desire to know wlietlier Mr. jjincoln to-tlay stands, as he did in 
lHr)4, in favor of the unconditional repeal of the Fugitive-Slave law. I 
desire him to answer whether he stands pledged to-day, as he did in 
18.') 1. against the admission o{ any more Slave States into the Union, 
even if the people want tliem. I want to know wlicther lie stands 
pledged against the a<lnii.ssi(>n of a new State into the Union witli 
Hucli a Constitution as the people of that State may see lit to make. 
1 w:int to know whether Fie stands to-day pledged to the aliolition of 
slavery in the District of Uolumhia. I desire him to answer whether 
he stands pledged to the prohibition of the slave trade Itetween the 
<Iilf«ieiit Slates. I desire to know whether lie stands pledgt'd to 
prohihit slavery in all the Territories of the United Stjites, N(»rth as 
well as South of tlu' Missouri UomprDinise line, I desire him to 
unKwer whether he is (tpposed to the aecpiisitioii of any more terri- 
tory, unless slavery is prohiMted therein. 



DOUGLAS. 169 

I want his answer to these questions. Your affirmative cheers 
in favor of this Abolition platform are not satisfactory. I ask Abra- 
ham Lincoln to answer these questions, ia oixkn- that, when I trot 
liim down to lovrcr Egypt, I may put the same qucotious to him. 
My principles are the same everywhere. I can prochiim them alike 
iu the North, the South, the East, and the West. My principles 
will apply wherever the Constitution prevails, and the American 
flag waves. I desire to know whether Mr. Lincoln's principles will 
Iteav transplanting from Ottawa to Jonesboro? I put these questions 
to him to-day distinctly, and ask an answer. I have a right to an 
answer, for I quote from the platform of the Republican party, 
made ijy himself and others at the time that partv was formed, and 
the bargain made by Lincoln to dissolve and kill the old Whig 
party, and transfer its members, bound band and foot, to the Aboli- 
tion party, under the direction of Giddings and Fred Douglass. 

SOME REMINISCENCES. 

In the remarks I have made on this platform, and the position 
of Mr. Lincoln upon it, I mean nothing personally disrespectful or 
unkind to that gentleman. I have known him for nearly twenty-five 
3'ears. There were many points of sympathy between us when we first 
got acquainted. "We were both comparatively boys, both struggling 
with poverty in a strange land. I was a school-teacher in the town 
of Winchester, and he a flourishing grocery-keeper in the town of 
Salem. He was more successful iu his occupation than I was in 
mine, and hence more fortunate in this world s goods. Lincoln is one 
of those peculiar men who perform with admii'able .skill everything 
which they undertake. I made as good a school-teacher as I could, 
and when a cabinet-maker I made a good bedstead and tables, al- 
though my old boss said I succeeded better with bureaus and 
secretaries than with anything else: but I believe that Lincoln was 
always more successful in business than I, for his business enabled 
him to get into the Legislature. I met him there, however, and 
had a sympathy with him, because of the up-hill struggle we both 
had in life. He was then just as good at telling an anecdote as 
now. He could beat any of the boys wrestling, or running a 
foot-race, in pitching quoits or tossing a copper; could ruin more 
liquor than all the boys of the town together; and the dignity and 
impartiality with which he presided at a horse-race or fist-fight ex- 
cited the admiration and won the praise of everybody that was 



170 OTTAWA DKliATK. AlUUST ~M. 1858. 

present aiul partu-iiiiilrd 1 s\ iiipathi/.iMl wiiii hiiii ht-ransi' he was 
slruji'iling with tlitlic-ultit's, and so was I. 

Mr. Liiicohi served with me in tlie Legi.'^lature in ISiWi. wlien we 
both retired, and he snhsided, or Iteeanie subiuer«jed, and he was loat 
sijjht of as a pnldic man for some yi':irs. In IS Id, when Wilniot 
introduced his celebrated proviso, and tlie Abolition tornatlo swept 
over the country, Lincohi again turned up as a member of Con- 
gress from the Sangamon district. 1 was then in the Senate of the 
I'nited States, and was glad to weU-ome my old friend and com- 
panion. Whilst in Congress, he distinguished iiimself by his op- 
position to the Mexican war, taking the side of the common enemy 
again.st his(»wn country, and when he returned home he found that 
the indignation of the people followed him everywhere, and ho was 
a>;ain sui»merged, or oiiliged to retire into })rivate life, forgotten by 
his former friends. He came up again in lSr)4, just in time to 
m.ike this Altolition or iJlack Republican platform, in comiiany with 
(lidilings, Lovejoy, ('li:ise, and Fred Dougla.ss, for Ihe lb'i»iililican 
party to stand upon 

Trumbull, too, was one of our own contemporaries, lie was 
Ikmu and raised in old Connecticut, was l)red a Federalist, but, re- 
moving to (ieorgia, turned Xullilier wiu'U Nullification was popular. 
and as soon as he disponed of his clocks and wound up his busi- 
ness, migrated to Illinois, turned poliiician and lawyer here, and 
made liis appearance in 1S41 as a member of the Legislature. He 
l»ecame noted as the author t)f the Bcheme to repudiate a large 
portion of the State del>t of Illinois, which, if successful, would 
have brought infamy and disgrace Ui)on the fair escutcheon of our 
glorious State. The odium attached to that uu'asure consigned him 
to oblivion for a time. I helped to do it. I walked into a public 
meeting in tin* h ill of the Ilctuse of Ilepresentatives, and replied to 
his repudiating speec-hes, and resolutions were carried over his head 
denouncing repudiation, and asserting the moral and legal obligation 
«»f Illinois to pay every dollar of the debt she owed, and evwy 
bond that bore her seal. TrumbuH's malignity has followed me 
since I thus defeated his infamous scheme. 

These two men having formed this e«mibination to Altolitioni/e 
tlie old N\"hig party and the old Democratic party, and i)ut them- 
selves into the Senate <;f the I'nited States, in pursuance of their 
bargain, are now carrying out that arrangement. ^Nlatheny states 
that Trumbull broke faith; that the bargain was that Lincoln 
shonld be the SiMiator in Shieldss pl.ice. and Trumbull was to wait 



DOUGLAS. 171 

for mine; and the story, goes that Trumbull cheated Liucolu, haviug 
control of four or live Abolitionized Democrats who were hold- 
ing over in the Senate; he would not let them vote for Lincoln, 
which oijliged the rest of the Abolitionists to support him in order 
to secure an Abolition Senator. There are a number of authorities 
for the truth of this besides Matheny, and I suppose that even Mr. 
Lincoln will not den}' it. 

Mr. Lincoln demands that he shall have the place intended for 
Trumbull, as Trumbull cheated him and got his, and Trumbull is 
stumping the State traducing me for the purpose of securing the 
l)osition for Lincoln, in order to quiet him. It was in consequence 
of this arrangement that the Republican Convention was empanelled 
to instruct for Lincoln and nobody else, and it was on this account 
that they passed resolutions that he was their first, their last, and 
their only choice. Archy Williams was nowhere. Browning was 
nobod}-, "Wentworth was not to be considered; they had no man in 
the Republican party for the place except Lincoln, for the reason 
that he demanded that the}' should carry out the arrangement. 

Having formed this new party for the benefit of deserters from 
Whiggery, and deserters from Democracy, and having laid down 
the Abolition platform which T have read, Lincoln now takes his 
stand and proclaims his Abolition doctrines. Let me read a part 
of them. In his speech at Springfield to the Convention which 
nominated him for the Senate, he said: — 

" In vny opinion it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached 
and passed. 'A house divided against itself cannot stand.' I believe this 
Government cannot endure permanently half Slave and half Free. I do not ex- 
pect the Union to be dissolved, — I do not expect the house to fall; but 1 
do expect it will cease to he divided. It will become all one thing, or all the 
other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, 
and ijlace it where the public mind shall rest in the belief t7iat it is in the 
course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward till it shall 
become alike lairfulin all the States, — old as Avell as new, North as well as 
South. 

[ ' ' Good, ' " " good, " ' and cheers. ] 

I am delighted to hear you Black Republicans say "good. " I 
have no doubt that doctrine expresses your sentiments, and I will 
prove to you now, if you will listen to me, that it is revolutionary, 
and destructive of the existence of this Government. Mr. Lincoln, 
in the extract from which I have read, says that this Government 
cannot endure permanently in the same condition in which it was 
made by its framers, — divided into Free and Slave States. He 



172 OTTAWA DEBATE, AUGUST 21, 1858. 

says that it lias i-xisti-d for alxuit sevciily Vfars lliiis divided, and 
yet lie tells you that it eannot endure perinani'iitly on the same prin- 
eiples and in the saiue rehitive condition in whicli our f<ithers made 
it. Why ean it not exist divideil into Free and Shive States? 
\Vasliin«_'ton. Jetrerson. I'ranklin, Madison, Hamilton, Jay, and the 
threat men of that tlay, made this {government divided into Free 
States and Slave States, and left each State perfectly free to do as 
it pleased on the sultji'ct of slavery. Why can it not exist on the 
same principles on which our fathers made it? They knew when 
Ihev franii'd the Constitution that in a country as wide and hroad 
as this, with such a variety of climate, proilurtiou, and interest, 
the i)eople necessarily recpiircd dilferent laws and institutions in 
ditFerent localities. They knew that the laws and regulations whicii 
would suit the granite hills of New IIam}ishire would be unsuited to 
the rice plantations of South Carolina, and they therefore provided 
that each State should retain its own Legislature and its own sov- 
ereignty, with the full and complete power to do as it pleased within 
ltd own limits, in all that was local and not national. 

One of the reserved rights of the States was the right to regulate 
the relations l)etwecn master and servant, on the slavery (juestion. 
At the time the ('(tustitiition was framcil, there were thirteen States 
in the Union, twelve of which were slaveholding States and one a 
Free State. Suppose this doctrine of uniformity preached by Mr. 
Lincoln, that the States should all lie I'nc or ail lie Slave had pre- 
vailed, and what would have been the result? Of course, the 
twelve slaveholding States would have overruled the one Free State, 
and slavery would have been fastened by a Constitutional provision 
on ever}- inch of the American Republic, instead of being left, as 
our fathers wisely left it, to each State to decide for itself. Here I 
assert that uniformity in the local laws and institutions of the dif- 
ferent States is neilhi-r possiltle or desirable. If uuiformitv hatl 
been adoptfil when the (ioveruuu'Mt was estalilislie(l. it must inevita- 
bly have been the uniformity of slavery evcrywlu-re, or else the uni- 
formity of negro citizenship and negro ecjuality everywhere. 

We are told by bincoln that he is utterly opposed to the Dred 
Scott decision, and will not submit to it, for the reason that he says 
it deprives the m-gro of the rights and privileges of citi/.enship. 
That is the first and main reason which In* assigns for his warfare on 
the Supremy Court <»f the United Stati'S and its decision. I ask you, 
are you in favor of conferring upon the negro the right.M and privi- 
leges of citizenship? Ho you desire to strike out of our State Con- 



DOUGLAS. 1 7:> 

stitution that clause which keeps slaves and free negroes out of the 
State, and allow the free negroes to flow in, and cover your prairies 
with black settlements? Do you desire to turn this beautiful State 
into a free negro colony, in order that when Missouri abolishes 
slavery she can send one hundred thousand emancipated slaves into 
Illinois, to become citizens and voters, on an equality with your- 
selves? If you desire negro citizenship, if you desire to allow them to 
come into the State and settle with the white man, if you desire them 
to vote on an equality with yourselves, and to make them eligible to 
office, to serve on juries, and to adjudge your rights, then support 
Mr. Lincoln and the Black Republican party, who are in favor of 
the citizenship of the negro. For one, I am opposed to negro citi- 
zenship in any and every form. I believe this Government was 
made on the white basis. I believe it was made by white men, for the 
benefit of white men and their posterity forever, and I am in 
favor of confining citizenship to white men, men of European birth 
and descent, instead of conferring it upon negroes, Indians, and 
other inferior races. 

Mr. Lincoln, following the example and lead of all the little 
Abolition orators, who go around and lecture in the basements of 
schools and churches, reads from the Declaration of Independence 
that all men were created equal, and then asks. How can you 
deprive a negro of that equality which (lod and the Declaration of 
Independence award to him? He and they maintain that negro 
equality is guaranteed by the laws of God, and that it is asserted in 
the Declaration of Independence. If they think so, of course 
they have a right to say so, and so vote. I do not question Mr. 
Lincoln's conscientious belief that the negro was made his equal, 
and hence is his brother ; but for my own part, I do not regard the 
negro as my equal, and positively deny that he is my brother, or 
any kin to me whatever. Lincoln has evidently learned by heart 
Parson Lovejoy's catechism. He can repeat it as well as Farns- 
worth, and he is worthy of a medal from Father Giddings and Fred 
Douglass for his Abolitionism. He holds that the negro was born 
his equal and yours, and that he was endowed with equality by the 
Almighty, and that no human law can deprive him of these rights, 
which were guaranteed to him liy tlie Supreme Ruler of the Universe. 

Now I do not believe that the Almighty ever intended the negro 
to be the equal of the white man. If he did, he has been a long 
time demonstrating the fact. For thousands of years the negro has 
been a race upon the earth, and during all that time, in all latitudes 



174 OTTAWA DEHATK. AlOrsT 21, la^S. 

ami c'limali's, wla-revtr lie lias waiulert'd oi been taken, lie lias been 
inferior to the raee wliicii In- has there met. He belongs to an in- 
ferior racf. ami must aiwavs occupy an inferior jtosit i.ni. I do not 
hold that because the negro is our inferior that therefore he ought 
to be a slave. By no means can such a conclusion be drawn from 
what I have said. Oa the contrary. I hold that humanity and 
Christianity both require that the negro shall have and enjoy 
every right, every privilege, and every immunity consistent with 
the safety of the society in which he lives. Oa that point, I pre- 
sume, there can l>e no diversity of opinion. Von anil I are liound 
to extend to our infi-rior and dependent beinirs every riirlit, every 
privilege, every facility and immunity consistent with the public 
good. 

Tin- (|ii«^;iiiii then ari>es. What rights and privileges are con- 
sistent with the public good ? This is a question which each State 
and each Territory must decide for itself. Illinois lias decided it f..r 
herself. We have provided that the negro shall not be a slave, and 
we have also provided that he shall not be a citizen, but protect him 
in his civil rights, in his life, his person and his property, only de- 
priving him of all political rights wiiat.soever, and refusing to put 
Jiim on an eciuality with the white man. That policy of Illinois is 
satisfactory to the Demoeratie party and to me ; and if it were to 
the Republicans, there would then be no question upon the subject. 
But the llepu])licans say that he ought to be made a citizen, and 
when he becomes a citizen he becomes your equal, with all your 
rights and i)rivileges. They assert the I>rcd Scott decision to l)e 
monstrous because it denies that the negro is or can l»e a citizen 
under the Constitution. Now, 1 hold that Illinois had a right to 
aljolish and prohiliit slavery as she did, and I hold tliat Kentucky 
has the same right to continue and protect slavery that Illinois had 
to abolish it. I hold that New York had as mucii right to abolish 
slavery as A'irginia has to continue it, and that each and every State 
of this I'nion is a sf)vereign power, with the right to do as it pleases 
upon this (juestiou of slavery, and upon all its d«)mestic institutions. 

NOT IIIK O.NI.V QI'KSTION. 

Slavery is not the only ([uestion which comes up in tiiis contro- 
versy. There is a far more important one to you, and that is. What 
shall Ik* done with the free negro? We have settled the slavery 
»|UeHtioii as far as we are concerned ; we have prohibited it in Illinois 
forever; and in doiiijx so. I think we have done wisely, and there is 



DOUGLAS. 175 

no man in the State who would be more strenuous in his opposition 
to the introduction of sliivory than I would. But when we settled 
t for ourselves, we exhausted all our power over that subject. We 
have done our whole dut}^ and can do no more. We must leave 
each and every other State to decide for itself the same question. 
In relation to the policy to be pursued toward the free negroes, we 
have said that they shall not vote; whilst Maine, on the other hand, 
has said that they shall vote. Maine is a sovereign State, and has 
tiie power to regulate the qualifications of voters within her limits. 
I would never consent to confer the right of voting and of citizenship 
upon a negro; but still I am not going to quarrel with Maine for 
differing from me in opinion. Let Maine take care of her own 
negroes, and fix the qualifications of her own voters to suit herself, 
without interfering with Illinois, and Illinois will not interfere with 
Maine. So with the State of New York. She allows the negro to 
vote, provided he owns two hundred and fifty dollars' worth of 
property, but not otherwise. While I would not make any distnic- 
tion whatever between a negro who held property and one who did 
not ; yet if the sovereign State of New York chooses to make that 
distinction, it is her business and not mine, and I will not quarrel 
with her for it. She can do as she pleases on this question if she 
minds her own business, and we will do the same thing. 

Now, mj^ friends, if we will only act conscientiously and rigidly 
upon this great principle of popular sovereignty, which guarantees 
to each State and Territory the right to do as it pleases on all things, 
local and domestic, instead of Congress interfering, we will con- 
tinue at peace one with another. Why should Illinois be at war 
with Missouri, or Kentucky with Ohio, or Virginia with New York, 
merely because their institutions differ? Our fathers intended that 
our institutions should differ. They knew that the North and the 
South, having different climates, productions, and interests, re- 
quired different Institutions. This doctrine of Mr. Lincoln, of 
uniformity among the institutions of the different States, is a new 
doctrine, never dreamed of by Washington, Madison, or the framers 
of this Government, Mr. Lincoln and the Republican party set 
themselves up as wiser than these men' who made this Government, 
which has flourished for seventy yeavs under the principle of popu- 
lar sovereignty, recognizing the right of each State to do as it 
pleased. Under that principle, we have grown from a nation of 
three oi four millions to a nation of about thirty millions of people; 
we have crossed the Alleghany mountains and filled up the whole 



ITf. OTTAWA DKHATE, AUGUST 21, 1858. 

Northwest, turniu'j the prairie into a {j;ardeii, and building up 
churches and schools, thus spreading civilization and Christianity 
where before there was nothing but savage barl)arisin. Under that 
principle we have become, from a feeble nation, the most powerful 
on the face of the earth; and if we only adhere lo that principle, 
we can go forward increasing in territory, in power, in strength, 
and in glory until the Republic of America shall be the North Star 
that shall guide the friends of freedom throughout the civilized 
world. 

And why can wi- not adhere to the great principle of self-govern- 
ment, upon whicli our institutions were originally' based? I believe 
that this new doctrine preached by Mr. Lincoln and his party will 
dissolve the Union if it succeeds. Tiiey are trying to array all the 
Northern States in one body against the South, to excite a sectional 
war itetween the Free States and the Slave States, in order that the 
one or the other may be driven to the wall. 

I am told that my time is out. Mr. Lincoln will now address 
3'ou for an hour and a half, and I will then occupy au half hour in 
replying to him. 



MK I.IN'COLN'S REPLY. 

My Fellow-Citizens: When a man hears himself somewhat mis- 
represented, it jjrovokes him, — at least, I find it so with myself; but 
when misrepresentation becomes very gross and palpaide, it is more 
apt to amuse him. The first thing I see fit to notice is the fact 
that Judge Douglas alleges, after running through the history of 
the old Democratic and the old Whig parties, that Judge Trumbull 
and my.self made an arrangement in 18r)4, by which I was to have 
the place of (leneral Shields \n the United Stales Senate, and 
Judge Truniliull was to have the place of Judge Douglas. Now, all 
I have to say upon that suV)ject is that I think no man — not even 
Judge Douglas — can prove it, hicditsc if is nat tnn'. I have no 
doul»t he is " conscirntitms " In saying it. 

As to those resolutions that he took such a length of time to 
read, as Itcing the platform of tlu- Republican party in ISj4, I say 
I never had anything lo do with them, and I thnik Truml)ull never 
had. Jutlge Douglas cannot show that either of us ever did have 
anything lo do with them. I believe this is true about those resolu- 



LINCOLN. 177 

tions: There was a cajl for a Convention to form a Republican part}- 
at Springfield, and I think that m}' friend Mr. Lovejoy, who is here 
upon this stand, had a hand in it. I think this is true, and I think 
if he will remember accurately, he will be able to recollect that he 
tried to get me into it, and I would not go in. I believe it is also 
true that I went away from Springfield when the Convention was in 
session, to attend court in Tazewell County. It is true they did 
place my name, though without authority, upon the committee, and 
afterward wrote me to attend the meeting of the committee; but I 
refused to do so, and I never had anything to do with that organi- 
zation. This is the plain truth about all that matter of the 
resolutions. 

Now, about this story that Judge Douglas tells of Trumbull bar- 
gaining to sell out the old Democratic party, and Lincoln agreeing 
to sell out the old Whig party, I hive the means of knowing about 
that: Judge Douglas cannot have; and I know there is no substance 
to it whatever. Yet I have no doubt he is ''■ conscientious'' about it. 
I know that after Mr. Lovejoy got into the Legislature that winter, 
he complained of me that I had told all the old Whigs of his dis- 
trict that the old Whig party was good enough for them, and some 
of them voted against him because I told them so. Now, I have no 
means of totally disproving such charges as this which the Judge 
makes. A man cannot prove a negative; but he has a right to 
claim that when a man makes an affirmative charge, he must offer 
some proof to show the truth of Vt^hat he says. T certainly cannot 
introduce testimony to show the negative about things, but I have a 
right to claim that if a man says he knowft a thing, then he must 
show Iioir he knows it. I alwa3's have a right to claim this, and it 
is not satisfactory to me that he maybe "conscientious" on the 
subject. 

Now, gentlemen, I hate to waste my time on such things ; l)ut in 
-regard to that general Abolition tilt that Judge Douglas makes, 
when he says that I was engaged at that time in selling out and 
Abolitionizing the old Whig pai'ty, I hope you will permit me to read 
a part of a printed speech that I made then at Peoria, which will 
show altogether a different view of the position I took in that 
contest of 1854. 

A Voice. — " Put on your specs." 

3fr. Lincoln. — Yes, sir, I am obliged to do so; T am no longer a 
3'9ung man. 

13 



ITS OTTAWA DEBATK. AUGUST 21. l.S.-)8. 

•• This is the r<7«<i/ of tho Missouri Compromisf.* Tin- fon-^roin;; liis- 
t»>ry miiy not In- pn-ciscly iiccurulo in t'Vi>ry particular, but 1 am sure it is 
suMirit'tiliy so Tor all tin- uses I shull ulti'mpl to niaUi' of it. and in it wo 
hav*' iM-fon- us the ciiicf materials enab!in<: us to corrrctly judge whctluT 
the n'|H-al of ti»>' Missouri Compromise is rijrlit or wron^r. 

" I think, und shall try to show, tliat it is wron;;. — wronp in its direct 
ofTfct. li'ltiufT slav«'ry into Kansas and Xebniska, and wrong in its prosi>ec- 
livo principle, allowing it to spread to ovorj' other part of the wide world 
where men can be found inclined to take it. 

"This (hrltind indilference, but, as 1 must think, covert r<'o' '/eal for 
the spread of sl.-ivery, I cannot but hale. I hate it because of the mon- 
>lnius injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republi- 
Ciin example of its just inlluence in the world, — enables the iMiemies of 
free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites: causes the 
real friends of freed<mi to doul)t our sincerity, and especially because it 
forces so mniiy really good men amongst ourselves into an open, war with 
the very fundamental principles of civil libert}', — critisingthe Declaration 
of Inde|M'ndence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but 
nelf-inlinnt. 

" Before proceeding. l«'t me say. I tliinU I have no jJPejutUce against the 
Southi-rn people. They are just what we would be in their situation. If 
slavery did not now exist among them, they would not introduce it. If it 
(lid now exist among us, we should not instantly give it up. This I believe 
of the masses North and South. Doubtless there are individuals on both 
sides who would not hold slaves under any circumstances; and others 
who would gladly introduce slavery anew, if it were out of existence. We 
know that some Southern men do free their slaves, go North, and become 
tip-top Abolitionists; while some Northern ones go South and become 
most cruel slave-mastiTS. 

" Wiien Southern people tell us they are no more resixmsible for the 
origin of slavery than we, I acknowledge the fact. When it is said that 
the institution exists, and that it is very didicult to get rid of it, in any 
satisfactory way, I can understand and a|)preciate the saying. I surely will 
not blame them for not doing what I should not know how to do myself. 
If all earthly power were given me. I should not know what to do. as to 
the existing institution. My first imi)ulse would be to free all the slaves 
and send them to Liberia,— to their own native land. But a moment's 
reflertion would convinci; me that whatever of high hope (as I think there 
is) there may be in this, in the long run, its sudden execution is impossi- 
l)le. If they wen- all landed there in a day, tliey would all perish in the 
next ten days; and there are not surplus shipping and sur|>lus money 
enough in the world to carry them there in many times ten days. What 
then? Free them all and keep them among us as underlings? Is it quite 
certain that this betters their conditi«)n? I think 1 would not hold <»ne in 
slavery, at any rate; yet the jxiint is not clear enouijh to nu' to denounce 
iM'ople uiH»n. What next? Tree them, and maki- them politically and 

1 TIiIk extract from Mr. Llncoln'a Pcorln npcfcli of IH.'^ was rend l>y lilm In tliu Ottawa ^■ 
liatc. bill wan not rrporii-ri fully or accurately In pittior ISmn <t /•>•-«.■ />.'../n. l! m In 
nrrU-d now ai iieceaaary to a coiiiplcic report of the ilcbato. 



T-lNf'OLN. 179 

socially our equals' My own IVolings will not admit of this; and if mino 
would, wo well know that those of the great mass of white people will not. 
\Yhether this feeling accords with justice and sound judgment, is not tiu^ 
sole question, if, indeed, it is any part of it. A universal feeling, whether 
well or ill founded, cannot be safely disregarded. We cannot, then, make 
tiiem equals. It does seem to me that systems of gradual emancipation 
might be adopted; but for their tardiness in this, I will not undertak(> to 
ju(lg(> our brethren of the Soutli. 

"When they remind us of tiieir constitutional rights, I acknowledge 
them, not grudgingly, but fully and fairly; and I would give them any 
legislation for the reclaiming of their fugitives which should not, in its 
stringency, be more likely to carry a free man into slavery, than our ordi- 
nary criminal laws are to hang an innocent one. 

" But all this, to my judgment, furnishes no more excuse for permit- 
ting slavery to go into our own Free Territory than it would for reviving 
the African slave trade by law. The law which forbids the bringing of 
shives from Africa, and that which has so long forbidden the taking of them 
to Nebraska, can hardly be distinguished on any moral principle ; and the 
repeal of the former could find quite as plausible excuses as that of the 
latter." 

I have reason to know tliat Judge Douglas knows that I said 
this. I think he has the answer here to one of the questions 
he put to me. I do not mean to allow him to catechise me unless 
he pays back for it in khid. I will not answer questions one after 
another, unless he reciprocates; but as he has made this inquiry, 
and I have answered it before, he has got it without my getting 
anything in return. He has got ray answer on the Fugitive- Slave 
law. 

Now, gentlemen, I do nt want to read at any greater length ; 
but this is the true complexion of all I have ever said in regard to 
the institution of slavery and the l)lack race. This is the whole of 
it; and anything that argues me into his idea of perfect social and 
political equality with the negro, is but a specious and fantastic ar- 
rangement of words, by which a man can prove a horse-chestnut to 
be a chestnut horse. 

I will say here, while upon this subject, that I have no purpose, 
directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in 
the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do 
so, and I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose to intro- 
duce political and social equality between the white and the black 
races. There is a physical difference between the two which, in my 
judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon 
the footing of perfect equality; and inasmuch as it becomes a ne- 
cessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, 



180 OTTAWA DKl'.ATK. AUGUST 21, 1858. 

am in favor of tlu' race to whirli I la-long having the superior posi- 
tion. I have never said anything to the contrurv, but I hold that, 
notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the 
netjro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated iu the Dec- 
laration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pur- 
suit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the 
white man. 1 agree with Judge Douglas he i.s not my eipi.il in 
many respects, — certainly not in color, perhaps noi in moral or in- 
tellectual endowment. Hut in the right to eat the bread, without 
the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my 
equal, and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living 
man. 

Now I i)ass on to consider one or two more of these little follies. 
The Judge is wofuUy at fault aliout his early friend Lincoln b«*ing a 
"grocery-keeper.'' I do nt know as it wouhl ho a great siu, if I 
had l)een; but he is mistaken. Ijincoln never kept a grocery any- 
wiiere in the world. It is true that Lincoln did work the latter part 
of one winter in a little still-house, up at the heail of a hollow. 

And so I think my friend the Judge is ecjually at fault when he 
charges me at the time when I was in Congress of having opposed 
our soldiers who were fighting in the Mexican war. The Judge did 
not make his charge very distinctly, but I can tell you what he can 
prove, l»y referring to the record. Vou remcml»er I was an old 
Wiiig, and whenever the Democratic party tricil to get me to vote 
that the war had been righteously Itegun by the President, I would 
not do it. Hut whenever they asked for any money, or land-war- 
rants, or anything to pay the soliliers there, during all that time, I 
gave the same vote that Judge Douglas did. Vou can think as you 
please as to whether that was consistent. Such is the truth; and 
the Judge has the right to make all lie can out of it. IJut when he, 
by u general charge, conveys the idea that I withheld supplies from 
the soldiers who were fighting in the Mexican war, or did anything 
else to hinder the soldiers, he is, to say the h'ast, grossly and Ito- 
gether mistaken, as a consultation of the n'cords will prove to him. 

As I have not ust-d iij) so nnicli of my tinu- as 1 h'd sui)p()sed, I 
will dwell a little longer upon one or two of llies<' minor toiiics upon 
whij-h the Jinlge has spoken, lie has read from my speech in 
Springfield, in which I say that '-a house divided against itself can- 
not stand." Does the Judge say it can stand? I don't know 
whether he dfM's or not. Tin- Judge does not srcm to bt^ attending 
to me just now. but I would like to know if it is his opinion that a 



LINCOLN. 181 

house divided against itself can stand. If he does, then there is a 
question of veracity, not between him and me, but between the 
Judge and an authority of a somewhat higher character. 

WHAT CONSTITUTES A DIVIDED HOUSE ? 

Now, .my friends, I ask your attention to this matter for the 
purpose of sa^-ing something seriously. I know that tiie Judge may 
readily enough agree with me that the maxim which was put forth 
by the Saviour is true, but he may allege that I misappl}^ it; and 
the Judge has a right to urge that, in my application, I do misap- 
ply it, and then I have a right to show that I do not misapply' 
it. When he undertakes to say that because I think this nation, so 
far as the question of slavery is concerned, will all become one 
thing or all the other, I am in favor of bringing about a dead uni- 
formit}' in the various States, in all their institutions, he argues er- 
roneously. The great variety of the local institutions in the States, 
springing frcm diiFsrences in the soil, differences in the face of the 
country, and in the climate, are bonds of Union. They do not make 
" a house divided against itself," but they make a house united. If 
they produce in oiie section of the country what is called for by the 
wants of another section, and this other section can supply the wants 
of the first, they are not matters of discord, but bonds of union, true 
bonds of union. 

But can this question of slavery be considered as among these 
varieties in the iustitutious of the country? I leave it to you to say 
whether, in the history of our Government, this institution of slav- 
ery has not always failed to be a bond of union, and, on the con- 
trary, been an apple of discord and an element of division in the 
house. I ask you to consider whether, so long as the moral consti- 
tution of men's minds shall continue to be the same, after this gen- 
eration and assemblage shall sink into the grave, and another race 
shall arise, with the same moral and intellectual development we 
have, — whether, if that institution is standing in the same irritat- 
ing position in which it now is, it will not continue an element of 
division ? If so, then I have a right to say that, in regard to this 
question, the Union is a house divided against itself ; and when the 
Judge reminds me that I have often said to him that the institution 
of slavery has existed for eighty years in some States, and yet it 
does not exist in some others, I agree to the fact, and I account for 
it by looking at the position in which our fathers originally placed 
it, — restricting it from the new Territories where it had not gone, 



1S2 uri'AWA DKIJA'IK. ACdlST -.'l, 18.'>8. 

:in«i Ugi>l:itiiig to cut vlT il.s sourre liy the ubrogalion of the slave- 
Iraile, thus putting the seal of legishition oijuiitst its sprtml. 

The puljlic miiul (//</ rest in the helief tliat it was in the course 
ot* ultimate extiiK-tion. Hut hitely, I Ihiulv — and in this I rharge 
notliing on the Judge's motives — hitely. 1 think, that he, anil tliose 
acting with him, have phiced that institution on a new basis, whieli 
\iX)\iH io tlw jurjx til it 1/ and national izdt tint o/ slairri/. And while it 
is pla<'ed upon this new Ijasis, I say, and I have said that I l»elieve 
we shall not havi' peace upon the (lucslioii until the opponents of 
slaver)' arn-st the fiirther spread of it, and place il where tin- public 
mind shall rest in the i)elief that it is in the course of ultiniali- ex- 
tinction; or, on the other hand, that its advocates will push it for- 
ward until it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well 
:ir* new. North as well as SuutJi. Now. I believe if we could arrest 
the spread, and place it where Washington and Jefferson and Madi- 
son placed it, it would be in the course of ultimate extinction, and 
the pulilie mind uon/d, as for eighty years past, believe that il was 
in the course of ultimate extinction. The crisis would be past, and 
the institution might be let alone for a hundred years, if it should 
live so long, in the States where it exists; yet it woidd be going out 
of existence in the way best for both the blaek and the white races. 

A Voice. — "Then do you repudiate Popular Sovereignty?" 

Mr. Lincoln. — Well, then, let us talk about Popular Sovereignty. 
What is Popular Sovereignty ? Is it the right of the people to 
have slavery or not liave it, as they see fit, in the Territories? I 
will state — and I have an able man to watch me — my understand- 
ing is that Popular Sovereignty, as now applied to the question of 
slavery, does allow the people of a Territory to have slavery if 
they want to, but does not allow them nut to have it if they do not 
want it. I do not mean that if this vast concourse of jjeople were 
in a Territor}' of the T'nited States, any one of them would be 
obliged to have a slave if he did not want one; but I do say 
that, as 1 understand the Dred Scott decision, if any one man wants 
slaves, all the rest have no way of k»'eping that one man from hold- 
ing them 

WIh'U I ujaile my speccli at Springfield, of which the Judge 
complains, and from which he (juotes. I really was not thinking of 
the things which he ascribes to me at all. I had no thought in tia' 
world that f was doing anything to bring about a war between the 
Free and Slave States. I had no thought in the world that I 
was doing anything to liring about a political and social ecpiality 



LINCOLN. 183 

of the black and the white races. It never occurred to me that I 
was doing anything, or favoring anything to reduce to a dead 
uniformity all the local institutions of the various States. But I 
must say, in all fairness to him, if he thinks I am doing something 
which leads to these bad results, it is none the better that I did not 
mean it. It is just as fatal to the country, if I have any influence 
in producing it, whether I intend it or not. But can it he true that 
placing this institution upon the original basis — the basis upon 
which our fathers placed it — can have any tendency to set the 
Northern and the Southern States at war with one another, or that it 
can have any tendency to make the people of Vermont raise sugar- 
cane, because they raise it in Louisiana ; or that it can compel the 
people of Illinois to cut pine logs on the Grand Prairie, where they 
will not grow, because they cut pine logs in Maine, where they do 
grow? 

The Judge says this is a new principle started in regard to this 
question. Does the Judge claim that he is working on the plan 
of the founders of the government? I think he says in some of 
his speeches — indeed, I have one here now — that he saw evidence 
of a policy to allow slavery to be south of a certain line, while 
north of it it should be excluded, and he saw an indisposition on 
the part of the country to stand upon that policy, and therefore he 
set about studying the subject upon original principJcs, and upon 
original principles he got up the Nebraska bill ! I am fighting it upon 
these " original principles," — fighting it in the Jeffersonian, Wash- 
ingtonian, and Madisonian fashion. 

THE CHARGE OF CONSPIRACY. 

Now, my friends, I wish you to attend for a little while to one 
or two other things in that Springfield speech. My main object 
was to show, so far as my humble ability was capable of showing, 
to the people of this country, what I believed was the truth, — that 
there was a tendency, if not a conspiracy, among those who have 
engineered this slavery question for the last four or five years, to 
make slavery perpetual and universal in this nation. Having made 
that speech principally for that object, after arranging the evidences 
that I thought tended to prove my proposition, I concluded with 
this bit of comment: — 

"We cannot absolutely know that these exact adaptations are the re- 
sult of preconcert; but when we see a lot of framed timbers, ditt'erent 
portions of which we know have been gotten out at diti'tTcnt times and 



184 OTTAWA liKltATi:. AlcilST -,'1. 1858. 

places, ami by dltrcn-nt worknim, — Stephoti. Franklin, Roger, and James, 
ftir inslancf, — ami wIumi wi- sec tlicso timlx-rs juinod to^othcr, and si'i- 
tlifV »«xactly make thf frame of a lioiise or a raill, all the tenons and 
mortises exactly llltintr, and all the leiiirths and proportions of the dilfer- 
ent pieces exactly aihipted to their n-spective places, and not a piece too 
many or too few, — n«)t omittiiifr even the scalfoldinf?. — or if a sin;:le piece 
he larkinir, we see the place in the frame exactly (itti'd and prepari'd yet 
tohrin^'such pi«*ce in. — in such a case we feel it imjiossihle not to be- 
lieve that Stephen and Franklin and Hofrer and .lames all undi-rstood one 
another from the bei,'innin<r, and all worked ui)on a common plan or draft 
tlrawn bfforf tin- first blow was struck." 

"WluMi my frit'iul Juilgc Dougla.s cume to Chicugfj on tlu' Kill ol 
July, tliis speech having been delivered on the lOlh of June. In' 
made an harangue there, in which he look hold of this speech of 
mine, showing that he hail carefully read it; and while he paid no 
attentioa to (his matti-r at all, hut eoinpliraented me as being a 
"kind, amiable, and intelligent gentleman," notwithstanding 1 had 
said this, he goes on and deduces, or draws out, from lu}" speech 
this tendency of mine to set the States at war with one another, to 
make all the institutions uniform, and set the niggers and white 
people to marrying together. Then, as the Judge had complimented 
me with these pleasant titles (I must confess to my weakness), I was a 
little " taken," for it came from a great man. I was not very much 
accustomed to flattery, and it came the sweeter to me. I was 
rather like the Iloosier, with the gingerbread, when he said he reck- 
oned he loved it better than any other man, and got less of it. As the 
Judge had so flattered me, I could not make up my mind that lu* 
meant to deal unfairly with me; so I went to work to show him 
that he misunderstood the whole scope of my speech, and that I 
really never intended to set the people at war with one another. 

As an illustration, the next time I met him, which was at 
Springfield, I used this expression, that I claimed no right tuider 
the Constitution, nor had I any inclination, to enter into the Slave 
States, and interfere with the institutions of slavery. He says 
upon that: Lincoln will not enter into the Slave States, but will go 
to the banks of the Oiiio, on this side, and shoot over! lie runs 
on, step by step, in the horse-chestnut style (»f argument, until in 
the Springfield speech he says: " Unless he shall be successful in 
firing hi;} batteries, tinlil he shall have exlinguisjicd slavery in all 
the SUdes. tin* Fnion shall be dissolved." Now, 1 do n t think that 
was exactly the way to treat a "kind, ami.able, intelligent gentle- 
man." I know if 1 had asked the Judge to show when or where it was 



LINCOLN. 185 

I h:;(l siiid that if I did n't succeed in firing into the Slave States 
uulii slavery should be extinguished, the Union sl^ould l)e dissolved, 
he could not have shown it. I understand what he would do. IIl' 
would sav, "I don't mean to quote from you, but this was the 
rcsiiU of what you say." But I have the right to ask, and I do ask 
now, Did you not put it in such a form that an ordinary reader or 
listener would take it as an expression from me ? 

In a speech at Springfield, on the night of the 17th, I thought 
I might as well attend to my own business a little, and 1 recalled 
his attention as well as I could to this charge of conspiracy to 
nationalize slavery. I called his attention to the fact that he had 
acknowledged, in my hearing twice, that he had carefully read the 
speech, and, in the language of the lawyers, as he had twice read 
the speech, and still had put in no plea or answer, I took a default 
on him. I insisted that I had a right then to renew that charge of 
conspiracy. Ten days afterward I met the Judge at Clinton, — 
that is to say, I was on the ground, but not in the discussion, — and 
heard him m dee a speech. Then he comes in with his plea to this 
charge, for the first time; and his plea when put in, as well as I 
can recollect it, amounted to this ; that he never had any talk with 
Judge Taney or the President of the United States with regard to 
the Dred Scott decision before it was made ; I (Lincoln) ought to 
know that the man who makes a charge without knowing it to 
be true, falsifies as much as he who knowingly tells a false- 
hood ; and, lastly, that he would pronounce the whole thing a 
f ilsshood ; but he would make no personal application of the charge 
of falsehood, not because of any regard for the "kind, amiable, in- 
telligent gentleman," but because of his own personal self-respect ! 

I have understood since then (but [turning to Judge Douglas] 
will not hold the Judge to it if he is not willing) that he has broken 
through the " self-respect, " and has got to saying the thing out. 
The Judge nods to me that it is so. It is fortunate for me that I 
can keep as good-humored as I do, when the Judge acknowledges 
that he has been trying to make a question of veracity with me. 
I know the Judge is a great man, while I am only a small man, but 
I fed thiit I have got him. I demur to that plea. I waive all objec- 
tions that it was not filed till after default was taken, and demur to 
it upon the merits. "What if Judge Douglas never did talk with 
Chief Justice Taney and the President before the Dred Scott decision 
was made, does it follow that he could not have had as perfect an un- 
derstanding without talking as with it ? I am not disposed to stand 



18li OITAW A DKIJATK, AUGUST 21, IS.^ 

ii|M»ii uiy li'jial :i(l\aiita>;i'. I am <lis|to.sfil to take his denial as be- 
lli^ like an answi-r in rhaiicery, that he neither liad any knowledge, 
iiifunnation. or hi-lief in the existence, of sneh a eonspiraey. I am 
di?'|n>M'd to lake his answer as being as liroad as though hi- had put 
it in tlu'se words. And now, I ask, even if he had done so, have 
not I a right to proir it tm him, and to otfer tiie evideni-e of more 
than two witnesses, by whom to prove it; and if the evidence proves 
the existence of the conspiracy, does his broad answer <lenying all 
knowh'dge. information, or l>elief, disturl) the fact ? It can only 
show that he was used by conspirators, and was not a leader of 
them. 

Now. in regard to his reminding me of the moral rule that i)er- 
sons who tell what they do not know to be true, falsify as mucii as 
those who knowingly tell falseho<tds 1 remember the rule, ami it 
must be borne in mind that in what I have nvul to you, I do not say 
that I Limir such a conspiracy to exist. To Ihat 1 rt-ph. I l»l!in if. 
If the Judge says that I do not believe it, then he says what he does 
not know, and falls within his own rule, that he who asserts a 
thing which he tloes not know l(^ he true, falsities as much as he 
who knowingly tells a falsehood. 

TIIK EVIDENCE. 

I want to call your attention to a little discussion on that ])ranch 
of the case, and the evidence which brought my mind to the con- 
clusion which I expressed as my hditf. if, in arraying that evi- 
dence, I had staled anything which was false or erroneous, it needed 
but that Judge Douglas should point it out, and I would have taken 
it back, with all the kindness in the world. I do not deal in that 
way. If I have brought forward anything not a fact, if he will 
IM>int it out, it will not even rullle me to take it back. But if he 
will not point out anything erroneous in the evidence, is it not rather 
for him to show, by a comj)arison of the evidence, that I have 
niixniud falsely, than to call tlii' "kind. amiaMc. intelligent gentle- 
man " a liar ? If I have reasoned to a false conclusion, it is the vo- 
cation of an able debater to show by argument that I have wan- 
dered to an erroneous conclusion. 

I want to ask your attention to a jtorlion of the Nebraska bill, 
which Judge Douglas lias (pioti'd : '-It being the true intent and 
njeaning of this Act, not to legislate slavery into any Territory or 
St^Uc, nor to exclude it therefroni. but to leav«' the people thereof 
perfectly free to form and regulate their ilomestic institutions in 



LINCOLN. 187 

their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States." 
Tliereupon Judge Douglas and others began to argue in favor of 
" Popular Sovereignty," — the right of the people to have slaves if 
tliey wanted them, and to exclude slavery if they did not want 
tliem. "But," said, in substance, a Senator from Ohio (Mr. Chase, 
I l)elieve), "we more than suspect that you do not mean to allow 
the jjeople to exclude slavery if they wish to; and if 3'ou do mean 
it, aeeejjt an amendment which I propose, expressly authorizing the 
people to exclude slavery." 

I believe I have the amendment here before me, which was of- 
fered, and under which the people of tlie Territor}', through their 
proper representatives, might, if they saw fit, prohibit the existence 
of slavery therein. And now I state it as a fact, to be taken back 
if there is any mistake about it, that Judge Douglas and those act- 
ing with him voted that amendment down. I now think that those 
men who voted it down had a real reason for doing so. They know 
what that reason was. It looks to us, since we have seen the Dred 
Scott decision pronounced, holding that "under the Constitution," 
the people cannot exclude slavery, — I say it looks to outsiders, 
poor, simple, " amiable, intelligent gentlemen," as though the niche 
was left as a place to put that Dred Scott decision in, — a niche 
which would have been spoiled by adopting the amendment. And 
now, I say again, if this was not the reason, it will avail the Judge 
much more to calmly and good-humoredly point out to these people 
what tliat othev reason was for voting the amendment down, than, 
swelling himself up, to vociferate that he may be provoked to call 
somebody a liar. 

Again : There is in that same quotation from the Nebraska bill 
this clause : "It being the true intent and meaning of this bill not 
to legislate slavery into any Territory or Stata. " I have always 
been puzzled to know what business the word " State" had in that 
connection. Judge Douglas knows. He put it there. He knows 
what he put it there for. We outsiders cannot say what he put it 
there for. The law they were passing was not about States, and 
was not making provision for States. What was it placed there 
for ? After seeing the Dred Scott decision, which holds that the 
people cannot exclude slavery from a Terrltorn^ if another Dred 
Scott decision shall come, holding that they cannot exclude it from a 
State, we shall discover that when the word was originally put 
there, it was in view of something which was to come in due time, 
we shall see that it was the other half of something. I now say 



188 OTTAWA DKHATi:, ATCTST 'U, 1858. 

again, if theiv is any «lltri*ri'nt reason for putting it there, Judge 
Douglas, in a gootl-humored way, without calling anybody a liar, 

cun (> fl nil, it till ritisiiii iriis. 

••ANOTnER Cn.VBGE." 

When the Jndge spoke at Clinton, he came very near making a 
charge of falsehootl against nie. He used, as I found it printed in 
a newspa[)er, which. 1 remendjer, was very nearly like the real 
speech, the following language : — 

•• I did nut answiT the char{?t^ [of conspiracy] before, for tlio reason tiiai 
I did not supixjse there was a man in America with a heart so corrujil .i^ 
to believe s\ich a diarpe could be true. I have too much respect for .Mr. 
Lincoln to suppose he is serious in making the charfrc" 

I confess this is rather a curious view, that out of respect for m 
he should consider I was making what I deemed rather a grave 
charge, in fun. I confess it strikes me rather strangely. Hut I let 
it pass. As the Judge did not for a moment believe that there w:i> 
a man in America wiiose heart was so " corrupt " as to make such a 
charge, and as he places me among the ''men in America," who 
have hearts base enough to make such a charge, I hope he will ex- 
cuse me if I hunt out another charge very like this; and if it should 
turn out that in hunting I should find that other, and it should turn 
out to be Judge Douglas himself who made it, I hope he will recon- 
sider this question of the deep corruption of heart he has thought 
fit to a.scribe to me. In Judge Douglas's speech of March 22, 1858, 
which T hold in my hand, he says: — 

"In this connection there is another topic to which I desire to allude. 
I seldom refer to the coursi^ of ni'wsi)apers, or notice the articles wiiich 
tlii-y publish in regard to myself; but the course of the Washington 
Union has been so extraordinary, for the last two or three months, that 
I think it wd! t-nough to make some allusion to it. It has n'ad nn' out of 
tin- Di-mocralic party every other day, at least for two or three montiis, 
and keeps reading me out, and, as if it had not succeeded, still continues 
to read me out, using sucli terms as 'traitor,' 'renegade,' 'deserter,' and 
other kind and [xdite ei)ithets of tiiat nature. Sir, I have no vindication 
to make of my Democracy against the Washington Union, or any oWwr 
newspa|)er. I am willing to allow my history and action for the last 
twenty years to speuk for themselves as to m}' political principles and my 
fidelity to iMilitical obligations. The Washington Union has a perr.onal 
grievance. When its editor was nominated for ])ublic |)rinter. I declined 
to v<»te for him, and stated (hat at some time I might give my reasons for 
doing so. Since I declined to gisc liiat vuti-. this scurrilous abuse, ihi. i 



LINCOLN. 189 

vindictive and constant attacks have been repeated almost daily on me. 
AVill my friend from Michigan read the article to which I allude? " 

This is a part of the speech. You must excuse me from reading 
the entire article of tlie Washington Union, as Mr. Stuart read it 
for Mr. Douglas. The Judge goes on and sums up, as I think, 
correctlj' : — 

"Mr. President, j'ou here find several distinct propositions advanced 
boldly by the Washington Union editorialh', and apparently authoritatively; 
and any man who questions any of them is denounced as an Abolitionist, 
a Free-soiler, a fanatic. The propositions are, first, that the primary object 
of all government at its original institution is the protection of person and 
property ; second, that the Constitution of the United States declares that 
the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and im- 
munities of citizens in the several States; and that, therefore, thirdly, 
all State laws, whether organic or otherwise, which prohibit the citizens 
of one State from settling in another with their slave property, and espe- 
cially declaring it forfeited, are direct violations of the original intention 
of the Government and Constitution of the United States; and, fourth, 
that the emancipation of the slaves of the Northern States was a gross out- 
rage of the rights of property, inasmuch as it was involuntarily done on 
the part of the owner. 

"Remember that this article was published in the Union on the 17th 
of November, and on the 18th appeared the first article giving the adhe- 
sion of the Union to the Lecompton Constitution. It was in these 
words : — 

"'Kansas and her Constitution. — The vexed question is settled. 
The problem is solved. The dead point of danger is passed. All .serious 
trouble to Kansas affairs is over and gone ' — 

"And a column nearlj' of the same sort. Then, when you come to 
look into the Lecompton Constitution, you find the same doctrine incorpor- 
ated in it which was put forth editorially in the Union. What is it? 

"'Article 7, Section 1. The right of property is before and higher 
than any constitutional sanction ; and the right of the owner of a slave to 
such slave and its increase is the same and as inviolable as the right of the 
o\vni>r of any property whatever.' 

"Then in the schedule is a provision that the Constitution may be 
amended after 1864 by a two-thirds vote. 

" 'But no alteration shall be made to affect the right of property in the 
ownership of slaves.' 

"It will be seen bj' these clauses in the Lecompton Constitution that 
they are identical in spirit with the authoritative article in the Washington 
Union of the day previous to its indorsement of this Constitution." 

I pass over some portions of the speech, and I hope that any 
one who feels interested in this matter will read the entire section 
of the speech, and see whether I do the Judge injustice. He pro- 
ceeds : — 



190 OTTAWA DHUATK. AUGUST 21, 1858. 

" WhtMj I saw Ihiit urlioli- in tin? Union of llu' 17th of Novcmht-r, fol- 
lowed by the ;,'loriHi'iition of tljc liccompton Constitution on thi* IStli of 
XovcmbtT, mill this flaiisc in tlii» Constitution asscrtin^r thodootrim- that 
n Stat*' has no ri^'ht to prohibit slavery within its limits, I saw tliat tiiere 
was li fatal bloir beiuL.' slruek at the soverei^'iily of the Stales of llijs 
Union." 

I stop tlio (luotation there, ajjain requesting that it may all he 
n-ad. 1 have le.iii nil (»f the iMirtioii I df^ire to cinnim-nt u[)<»ii. 
What is this charge that the Judge thinks I must have a very cor- 
rupt heart to make? It was a purpose on llu- part of certain liigli 
funetionark'S to make it impossible for the people of one State to 
prohiidt the people of any other State from enteriiij^ it with their 
"property," so called, and making it a Slave State. In other 
won Is it was a charge implying a design to make the institution of 
slavery national. And now 1 ask your attention to what .jMd;zc 
Douglas has himself done here. I know he made that part of the 
speech as a reason why he had refused to vote for a certain man for 
public printer; but when we get at it, the charge itself is the very 
one I made against him, that he thinks I am so corrupt for utter- 
ing. Now, whom docs he make that charge against? J)ocs he 
make it against tliat newspaper editor merely? No; he says it is 
identical in spirit with the Lecompt<jn Constitution, and so the 
framers of tliat Constitution are brought in with the eilitor of the 
newspaper in that '-fatal Ijlow being struck." He did not call it a 
"conspiracy." In his language, it is a "fatal blow being struck.' 
And if the words carry the meaning Ijetter when changccl from a 
"conspiracy" into a "fatal blow being struck," I will change mi/ 
expression, and call it "fatal blow being struck." We see the 
charge made not merely against the editor of the rm'oti, l)ut all the 
framers of the Lecompton Constitution; and not only so, but the 
article was an <int/inn'tntirr article. By whose authority? Is there 
any question but he means it was by the authority of the President 
and his Cabinet, — the Administration? 

Is there any sort of (piestion but that he means to make that 
charge? Then there are the editors of the Union, the framers of 
the Lecompton Constitution, the President of the Cnited States and 
his Cabinet, and nil the sujiporters of the Lecompton Constitution, 
in Congress and out of Congress, who are all involved in this " fatal 
blow being struck " I commend to Judge Douglas's consideration 
the question of how corrupt a man's heart must be to make such 
a charge ! 



LINCOLN. 191 

WHAT IS NECESSARY TO NATIOXALIZE SLAVERY ? 

Now, my friends, I have but one branch of the subject, in the 
little time I have left, to which to call your attention; and as I shall 
come to a close at the end of that branch, it is probable that I shall 
not occupy quite all the time allotted to me. Although on these 
questions I would like to talk twice as long as I have, I could not 
enter upon another head and discuss it properly without running 
over my time. I ask the question of the people here assembled 
and elsewhere to the course that Judge Douglas is [)ursuing every 
day as bearing upon this question of making slavery national. Not 
going back to the records, but taking the speeches he makes, the 
speeches he made yesterday and day before, and makes constantly 
all over the country, — 1 ask your attention to them. In the first 
place, what is necessary to make the institution national? Not 
war. There is no danger that the people of Kentucky will shoulder 
their muskets, and, with a 3'oung nigger stuck on every bayonet, 
niai'ch into Illinois and force them upon us. There is no danger of 
our going over there and making war upon them. Tiien what is 
necessary for the nationalization of slavery ? It is simply the next 
Dred Scott decision. It is merely for the Supreme Court to decide 
that no State under the Constitution can exclude it, just as they 
have already decided that under the Constitution neitlier Congress 
nor the Territorial Legislature can do it. When that is decided and 
acquiesced in, the whole thing is done. 

This being true, and this being the way, as I think, that slavery 
is to be made national, let us consider what Judge Douglas is doing 
ever}' day to that end. In the flrst place, let us see what influence 
he is exerting on public sentiment. In this and like communities, 
public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing 
can fail ; without it, nothing can succeed. Consequently, he who 
moulds public sentiment, goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or 
pronounces decisions. He makes statutes and decisions possible or 
impossible to be executed. This must be borne in mind, as also 
the additional fact that Judge Douglas is a man of vast influence, 
so great that it is enough for many men to profess to believe au}'- 
thiug, when they once find out that eludge Douglas professes to 
believe it. Consider also the attitude he occupies at the head of a 
large party, — a parly which lie claims has a majority of all the 
voters in the countr}'. This man sticks to a decision which forbids 
the people of a Territory from exehuling slavery, and he does so, 



192 OTTAWA DKIJATE, AUfiUST 21. 1858. 

not because he says it is right in itself.- In- docs not <,mvi' any 
opinion on tlnit,— but because it has been decided by the court; 
and being decided by the court, he is, and you are. bound to take it 
in your political action as law, not that he judges at all of its mer- 
its, but because a decision of the court is to him a •• Thus saith the 
Lord." He places it on that ground alone ; and you will bear in 
mind that thus committing himself unreservedly to this decision 
commits him to the next one just as firmly as to this. l\v did not 
(.-oniMiit liimsi'lf on ac-count ^>f I lie merit oi' driiuiit ol' tlic dt'ci.sioii, 
Init it is a •' Tims saith llu' Lord." The next decision, as much as 
this, will be a •• Thus saith the Lord." 

'riKTi.' is notliinj: llial can di\(.'rt or turn him away from tiii.s 
decision. It is nothing that I point out to him that his great pro- 
totype, (Jeneral Jaekson, did not l)elieve in the l)inding force of 
(leeisioiis. It is nothin«r to him that JelTerson did not so believe. 
I have said tiiat I liave often lieard iiim approve of Jackson's course in 
disregarding the di-eision of tiie Supreme Court i)ronouncing a Na- 
tional Hank constituticnial. He says. I did not hear him say so. He 
denies the accurae}' of my recollection. I say he ought to know better 
than I, l)ut I will make no (piestion about this thing, though it still 
seems to me that I heard him .say it twenty times. I will tell him, 
though, that he now claims to stand on the Cincinnati platform. 
which aflirms that Congress nnniof charter a National IJank. in the 
teeth of that old standing decision that Congress <(iii charter a 
bank. 

And I remind him of another piece of history on the question of 
respect for judicial decisions: and it is a i)iei-e of Illincns liistorv lu - 
longing to a time when the large party to which Judge Douglas 
belonged were displeased with a decision of the Supreme Court of 
Illinois; because the}' had decided that a (lovi-rnor could not 
remove a Secretary of State. You will tind the whole story in 
Fonls Ilistor}' of Illinois, and I know that Judge Douglas will nctt 
deny that he was then in favor of overslaughing that (K'cision l>y 
the mode of adding live new judges, so as to vote down the four old 

ones. Not Onl}' so, but it endeil in t/ir ,/;/(/(/« '.s- siltinij tiiiirii nil (lull 
iiri/ Iniirfi iin uiir iif' till jiir iii ir Jiiil ijis til lirink ihnrn the fuitr ohlonrs. 
It was in this way precisely that he got his title of judge. Now, 
when tiie Judge ti'Ils me lliat men appoinled conditionally to sit as 
ineiidxrH of a court will li.ive to be cnlechisecl beforehand upon 
some Hul)ject, I say, " Vou know. Judge; you have tried it. ' 
When he says a court of this kind \\ill lose the c(.>nlidence of all 



LINCOLN. 103 

men, will be prostituted and disgraced by such a proceeding, I say, 
" Yon know best, Judge; you have been through tlie mill." 

But I cannot shake Judge Douglas's teeth loose from the Dred 
Scott decision. Like some obstinate animal (I mean no disrespect) 
that will hang on when he has once got his teeth fixed, you may cut 
oir a leg, or 3-ou may tear away an arm, still he will not relax his 
hold. And so I may point out to the Judge, and say, that he is 
bespattered all over, from the beginning of his political life to the 
present time, with attacks upon judicial decisions; I may cut off 
limb after limb of his public record, and strive to wrench him from 
a single dictum of tlie court, — yet I cannot divert him from it. 
He hangs, to the last, to the Dred Scott decision. These things 
show there is a purpose strong as death and eternity for which he ad- 
heres to this decision, and for which he will adhere to all other 
decisions of the same court. 

^1 Hibernian. — '-Give us something besides Drid Scott." 

3Ir. Lincoln. — Yes; no doubt j'ou want to hear something 
that don't hurt. Now, having spoken of the Dred Scott de- 
cision, one more word, and I am done. Henry Cla^', my beau- 
idral of a statesman, the man for whom I fought all my humble 
life, — Henry Clay once said of a class of men who would repress all 
tendencies to liberty aud ultimate emancipation, that they must, if 
they would do this, go back to the era of our Independence, and 
muzzle the cannon wliich thunders its annual joyous return; they 
must blow out the moral lights around us; they must penetrate the 
human soul, and eradicate there the love of liberty; and then, and 
not till then, could they perpetuate slavery in this country! To my 
thinking. Judge Douglas is, by his example and vast influence, do- 
ing that very thing in this community, when he says that the 
negro has nothing in the Declaration of Independence. Henry Clay 
plainl}' understood the contnuy. 

Judge Douglas is going back to the era of our Revolution, and 
to the extent of his ability, muzzling the cannon which thunders 
its annual joyous return. When he invites any people, willing to 
have slavery, to establish it, he is blowing out the moral lights 
around us. When he says he " cares not whether slavery is voted 
down or voted up," — that it is a sacred right of self-government, — 
he is, in my judgment, penetrating the human soul and eradicating 
the light of reason and the love of liberty in this American people. 
And now I will only say that when, by all these means and appli- 
ances, Judge Douglas shall succeed in bringing public sentiment to 
13 



1!)| OTTAWA HKllATi:, ATCl'ST 21, I.S08. 

an I'xact accordancf with liis (»\vn views; wIrmi tliese vast assem- 
blages shall echo back all these sentiments; when they shall come 
to ri'peat his views and to avow his princii)les. aixl to say all that he 
says on these mi«:hty (jnestions, — then it needs only the formality 
of the second Dred Scott decision, which he endorses in advance, to 
make slavery alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new, 
North as well as South. 

My friends, that ends the chapter. The .Judge can take his 
half-hour. 



MU. DnrcLASS RK.IOIXDKK. 

Fellow-Citizens ; 1 will now occupy the half-hour allotted to 
me in re|)!ying to Mr. Lincoln. The first point to which I will call 
your attention is as to what I said about the organization of the 
llepublican party in 1854, and the i)latforin that was formed on the 
.')tli of October of that year, and I will then put the question to Mr. 
Lincoln, whether or not he approves of each article in that platform, 
and ask for a specific answer. 1 did not charge him with being a 
member of the committee which reported that platform. 1 charged 
that that platform was the |)latform of the Republican party atlopted 
by them. The fact that it was the platform of the Kepublican party 
is not denied ; but Mr. Lincoln now says that although his name 
was on the committee which reported it. that he does not think he 
was there, but thinks he was in Tazewell, holding court. Now, I 
want to remind Mi'. Lincoln that he was at Si)ringfield when that 
Convention was heUl and tho.se res(»hitions were adopted. 

The point I am going to remind Mr. l.,inc()ln of is this : that 
after I had made my speech in 1854, during the Fair, he gave me 
notice that he was going to reply to me the next day. I was sick 
at the time, but I stayed over in Springfield to hear his reply, and 
to reply to him. On that day this very Convention, the resolutions 
ado|>ted by which I have read, was to meet in the Senate chamber. 
He spoke in the hall of the House ; and when he got through his 
speech, — my recollection is distinct, and 1 shall never forget it, — 
Mr. Codding walked in as I took the stand to reply, and gave notice 
that the Hepublican State Convention would meet instantly in the 
Senate chand)er, and called upon the Republicans to retire there 
and go into this very ('<»nventiiin, instead of remaining and listening 
to me. 

In the first place, Mr. Lincoln was selected by the very men who 
made th«' Republican orgainzation on (hat day, to reply to me. lie 



DOUGLAS. 195 

spoke for them and for that party, and he was the leader of the 
party ; and on the very day he made his speech in reply to me, 
preaching up this same doctrine of negro equality under the Decla- 
ration of Independence, this Republican party met in Convention. 
Another evidence that he was acting in concert with them is to be 
found in the fact that that Convention waited an hour after its time 
of meeting to hear Lincoln's speech, and Codding, one of their lead- 
ing men, marched in the moment Lincoln got through, and gave 
notice that they did not want to hear me, and would proceed with 
Ihe business of the Convention. Still another fact. I have here a 
newspaper printed at Springfield, Mr. Lincoln's own town, in Octo- 
ber, 1854, a few days afterward, publishing these resolutions, charg- 
ing Mr. Lincoln with entertaining these sentiments, and trying to 
prove that they were also the sentiments of Mr. Yates, then candi- 
date for Congress. This has been published on Mr. Lincoln over 
and over again, and never before has he denied it. 

Douglas's questions. 

But, my friends, this denial of his that he did not act on the 
committee, is a miserable quibble to avoid the main issue, which is, 
that this Republican platform declares in favor of the unconditional 
repeal of the Fugitive-Slave law. Has Lincoln answered whether 
he indorsed that or not? I called his attention to it when I first 
addressed you, and asked him for an answer, and I then predicted that 
he would not answer. How does he answer? Why, that he was not 
on the committee that wrote the resolutions. I then repeated 
the next proposition contained in the resolutions, which was to re- 
strict slavery in those States in which it exists, and asked him whether 
he indorsed it. Does he answer yes, or no? He says in reply, "I 
was not on the committee at the time ; I was up in Tazewell." The 
next question I put to him was, whether he was in favor of prohibit- 
ing the admission of any more Slave States into the Union. I put 
the question to him distinctly, whether, if the people of the Terri- 
tory, when they had sufficient population to make a State, should 
form their Constitution recognizing slavery, he would vote for or 
against its admission. He is a candidate for the United States 
Senate, and it is possible, if he should be elected, that he would 
have to vote directly on that question. I asked him to answer me 
and you, whether he would vote to admit a State into the Union, 
with slavery or without it, as its own people might choose. He did 
not answer that question. He dodges that question also, under the 
cover that he was not on the committee at the time, that he was not 



i;m; ori'AWA dkhatk. Arra'sT 21. i858. 

pivsenl wlifii till- platform was madr. I want to know if lie slioultl 
tiapptMi t(» hi' in till' S(."natt' wiien a State applii'd for aduiission, with 
ii C'onstiliitioa at-cfptaMe to her own people, he would vote to ad- 
mit tluit State, if slavery was one of its institutions. He avoids the 
answer. 

It i.s trut' he <rives the Aholitionists to understand by a hint that 
he would not vote to admit such a State. And wiiy? He goes on 
to .'*ay that the njan who wouUl talk about <i;iving each State the 
ri«;ht to have slavery or not, as it pleased, was akin to the m:in who 
would muzzle the guns which thundered forth the annual joyous re- 
turn of the day of our hulependence. He says that that kind of tidk is 
casting a blight on the glory of this country. What is the meaning 
of that? That he is not in favor of each State to have the riglit of 
doing as it pleases on the slavery question? I will put the question 
to hira again and again, and I intend Cb force it out of him. 

Then, again, this {datform, which was made at Si)riiigfield by 
his own party when he was its aiknowh'dged head, provides that 
Republicans will insist on the abolition of slavery in the ])islrict of 
CV>hunbia, and I asked Jjincoln specilically whether he agreed with 
them in that? [Voice: " Did you get au answer? "] He is afraid 
to answer it. He knows I will trot him down to Kgypt. I intend 
to make liim answer there, or I will show the people of Illinois that 
he does not intend to answer these questions. The Convention to 
which I have been alluding goes a little furtlu-r, and pleilges itself 
to exclude slavery from all the Territories over which the General 
Government has exclusive jurisdiction north of 3G deg. 30 miu., as 
well as south. Xow. I want to know whether he approvi's that pro- 
vision. I want him to answer, and when he docs, I want to know 
his opinion on another point which is, whctiier he will redeem the 
pledge of this platform, and resist the ac(|uirement of any nnu-e 
territory unless slaver}' therein shall be forever prohibited. I want 
him to answer this last (jucstion. 

Kach of the ijuestions I have put to him are practical (juestions, 
— (juestions based U{)on the fundamental principh'S of the IJlack 
Repultlican party ; and I want to know whether he is the (irst, last, 
and only choice of a party with whom he docs not agree in principle. 
He does not deny but that that principle was unanimously adopted 
by the Hepubli<'an party ; he does not deny that the whole Republi- 
can party is pledged to it ; he docs not deny that a man who is not 
faithful to it is faithless to the Republican party ; and now 1 want 
to know whether that jiarly is unanimously in favor of a man who 



DOUGLAS. 197 

does not adopt that creed and agree with them in their principles ; 
1 want to know whether the man who does not agree witli them, and 
who IS afi'aid to avow his differences, and who dodges the issue, is 
the first, kist, and onl}'^ choice of the Republican party. 

A Voice. — How about the conspiracy? 

Mr. /)i)Nf/Ja.^.— -'Never mind, I will come to that soon enough. 
But the platform which I have read to you not only lays down these 
principles, but it adds : — 

" Resolred, That, in furtherance of these principles, we will use such 
constitutioiiul and hiwful means as shall seem best adapted to their ac- 
complishment, and that we will support no man for office, under the 
General or State Government, who is not positivcl}' and fully committed 
to the support of these principles, and whose personal character and con- 
duct is not a guarantee that he is reliable, and who shall not have abjured 
old party allegiance and ties." 

The Black Republican party stands pledged that they will never 
support Lincoln until he has pledged himself to that platform ; but 
he cannot devise his answer. He has not made up his mind whether 
he will or not. He talked about everything else he could think of 
to ocui)y his hour and a half, xind when he could not think of any- 
thing more to sa}^ without an excuse for refusing to answer these 
questions, he sat down long before his time was out. 

In relation to Mr. Lincoln's charge of conspiracy against me, I 
have a word to say. In his speech to-day he quotes a playful part 
of his speech at Springfield, about Stephen, and James, and Franklin, 
and Roger, and says that I did not take exception to it. I did not 
answer it, and he repeats it again. I did not take exception to this 
figure of his. He has a right to be as playful as he pleases in 
throwing his arguments together, and I will not object; but I did 
take objection to his second Springfield speech, in which he stated 
that he intended his first speech as a charge of corruption or con- 
spiracy against the Supreme Court of the United States, President 
Pierce, President Buchanan, and myself. That gave the ofl'ensive 
character to the charge. He then said that when he made it he did 
not know whether it was true or not ; but inasmuch as Judge 
Douglas had not denied it, although he had replied to the other 
parts of his speech three times, he repeated it as a charge of con- 
spiracy against me, thus charging me with moral turpitude. When 
he put it in that form, I did say that, inasmuch as he repeated the 
charge simply because I had not denied it, I would deprive him of 
the opportunity of ever repeating it again, by declaring that it was, 



198 OTTAW A DEBATE. AUGUST ','1. 1S.".8. 

in all lis l>t':irin«:;s, an infamous lie. lit- says lit- will it'pi'at it until 
I answer bis folly nud nonsense about Stephen, ami Franklin, ami 
Ro«ier. ami lioh. ami James. 

He studied that out, prepared that oue sentence with the great- 
est care, committed it to memory, and put it in his first Springfield 
sjK'eeh; and now he carries that speech around, and reads that sen- 
tence to show how pretty it is. His vanity is wounded hecause I 
will not go into that beautiful figure of his about the building of a 
house. All I have to say is, that I am not green enough to let him 
make a charge which he acknowledges he does not know to be true, 
and then take up my time in answering it, when 1 know it to l)e 
false, and nobody else knows it to be true. 

I have not brought a charge of moral turpitude against him. 
When he. or any other nvin, brings one against me, instead of dis- 
proving it, I will say that it is a lie, antl let him prove it if he can. 

I have lived twenty-live yens in Illinois, I have served you with 
all the fidelity and ability which I possess, and Mr. Lincoln is at 
liberty to attack my public action, my votes, and my conduct ; but 
when be dares to atUick my moral integrit}' by a charge of con- 
spiracy between myself. Chief Justice Taney and the Supreme 
Court, and two Presidents of the United States, I will repel it. 

Mr. Lincoln has not character enough for integrity and truth, 
merely on his own ijisf ilijit, to arraign President Buchanan, Presi- 
dent Pierce, and nine Judges of the Supreme Court, not one of 
whom would be complimented by being put on an ecjuality with 
bim. There is an unpardonable presumption in a man putting him- 
self up before thousands of people, and pretending that his ipse 
i/i.ri'f, without proof, without fact, and without truth, is enough to 
bring down and destroy the purest and best of living men. 

Fellow-citizens, my time is fast expiring ; I must pass on. Mr 
Lincoln wants to know why I voted against Mr. Chase's amendment 
to the Nebraska bill. I will tell him. In the first place, the bill 
already conferred all the power which Congri'ss bad, by giving the 
people the whijle power over the subject. Chase olfered a proviso 
that they might abolish slavery, which by implication would convey 
the idea that they could prohibit by not introducing that institution, 
(leneral Cass asked him to moilifv his aineudinent so as to provide 
that the people might either prohibit or introduce slavery, and thus 
make it fair and ecpial. Clias** refusecl to so modify his proviso, 
and then (ieneral Cass :ind all the n-st of us voted it down Those 
facts appear on the jfiurnals and (lel)ates of Congress, where Mr. 



DOUGLAS. 1[)[) 

Lincoln found the cUtirge; and if he had told the whole truth, there 
would have lieeu no necessity for me to occupy your time in explain- 
ing the mutter. 

Mr. Lincoln wants to know why the word "State," as well as 
" Territory, " was put into the Nebraska bill. I will tell him. It 
was put there to meet just such false arguments as he has been ad- 
ducing. That first, not only the people of the Territories should do 
as they pleased, 1)ut that when they come to be admitted as States, 
they should come into the Union with or without slavery, as the 
people determined. I meant to knock iu the head this Abolition 
doctrine of Mr. Lincoln's, that there shall be no more Slave States, 
even if the people want them. And it does not do for him to say, 
or for any other Black Hepublican to say, that there is nobody in 
favor of the doctrine of no more Slave States, and that nobody 
wants to interfere with the right of the people to do us they please. 

What was the origin of the Missouri difficulty and the Missouri 
Compromise ? The people of Missouri formed a Constitution as a 
Slave State, and asked admission into the Union ; but the Free-soil 
party of the North, being in a majority, refused to admit her be- 
cause she had slavery as one of her institutions. Hence this first 
slavery agitation arose upon a State, and not upon a Territory; and 
yet Mr. Lincoln does not know why the word " State " was placed 
in the Kansas-Nebraska bill. The whole Abolition agitation arose on 
that doctrine of prohibiting a State from coming in with slavery or 
not, as it pleased, and that same doctrine is here in this Republican 
platform of 1854; it has never been ' repealed ; and every Black 
Republican stands pledged by that platform never to vote for any 
man who is not in favor of it. Yet Mr. Lincoln does not know that 
there is a man in the world who is in favor of preventing a State 
from coming in as it pleases, notwithstanding. The Springfield 
platform says tliat they, the Republican party, will not allow a 
State to come in under such circumstances. He is an ignorant man. 

Now you see that upon these ver}^ points I am as far from bring- 
ing Mr. Lincoln up to the line as I ever was before. He does not 
want to avow his principles. I do want to avow mine, as clear as 
sunlight in midday. Democracy is founded upon the eternal prin- 
ciple of right. The plainer these principles are avowed before the 
people, the stronger will be the support which they will receive. I 
only wish I had the power to make them so clear that they would 
shine in the heavens for every man, woman, and child to read. The 
first of those principles that I would proclaim would be in opposi- 



200 FRKEPORT DEHATE. AUGUST 27, 1838. 

tion to Mr. Lincoln's tloclriiu' of unifoiinity hetweun the ditreroiit 
Statt's, anil 1 would ik'i-laiv instead the soverei<;n rij^ht of each State 
to deeitle the slavery question as well as all other domestic (Hies- 
tions for themselves, without interference from any otiier State or 
power whatsoever. 

When that principle is reco«i;ni/ed, you will have itcace and 
harmony and fraternal feelin<f iietween all the States of this I'nion; 
until you do reeoj^nize that doctrine, there will be sectional wiirfare 
a^itiitinj; and distracting; the country. What does Mr. Lincoln pro 
lK>se ? He siiys that the Union cannot exist divided into Free and 
Slave Stites. If it cannot endure thus divided, tiicn he nnist strive 
to make them all Free or all Slave, which will inevilaliiy lirin<i ahoiit a 
dissolution of the Union. 

Gentli-nifn, I am told that n»y lime is out, and I am obliged to 
stop. 



SECOM) .lolXT DEUATE, AT FREEPORT, 

Auf/iixt 21, 1S5S. 
Mil. LINCOLN'S SPEECH. 

L.vDiFS AND CJentlemen: On Saturday last. Judge Doufjlas 
and my.sclf lirst met in public discussion. He spoke one hour. I 
an hour and a half, and he replied for half an hour. The or<ler is 
now reversed. I am to s})eak an hour, he an hour and a half, and 
then I am to reply for half an hour. I propose to devote myself 
durin<; the lirst hour to the scope of what was brought within the 
range of his half-hour speech at Ottawa. Of course there was 
brought within the scope of that half-hour's speech something of 
his own opening speech. 

In the course of that oi)cniiig arguiiiciit JikIim' Douglas pro- 
IM)sed to me seven distinct interrogatories. In my speech of an 
hour an<l a half, I attended to .some other parts of ids speech, ami 
incident.'dly, as T thought, answered on«' of tlic interrogatories 
tlH-n. I then distinctly intimated to him that I woidd answer the rest- 
of his inh-rrogatories, on condition only that he should agree to answer 



LINCOLN. 201 

as many for nie. He made no inlhnation at the time of the proposi- 
tion, nor did he in liis rep!}- allude at all to that suggestion of mine. 
I do him no injustice in saying that he occupied at least Jialf of his 
repl}- in dealaig wilLi me as though I had rr/ii.snl to answer his in- 
terrogatories. I now propose that I will answer any of the inter- 
rogatories, upon condition that he will answer questions from me 
not exceeding the same numjjer. I give him an opportunity to re- 
spond. The Judge remains silent. I now say that I will answer 
his interrogatories, whether he answers mine or not ; and that after 
I have done so, I shall propound mine to him. 

1 have supposed myself, since the organization of the Republi- 
can party at Bloomington, in May, 185G, bound as a party man b}' 
the platforms of the party, then and since. If in any interroga- 
tories which I shall answer I go beyond the scope of what is within 
these platforms, it will be perceived that no one is responsible but 
m3'self. 

Having said thus much, I will take up the Judge's interroga- 
tories as I find them printed in the Chicago Times, and answer them 
seriatim. In order that there ma}' be no mistake about it, I have copied 
the interrogatories in writing, and also m}- answers to it. The first 
one of these interrogatories is in these words : — 

(Question 1.— "I desire to know whether Lincoln to-day stands, as 
he did in 1854, in favor of the unconditional repeal of the Fugitive- 
Slave law?" 

Aitsirer. — I do not now, nor ever did, stand in favor of the 
unconditional repeal of the Fugitive-Slave law. 

Q. 2. " I desire him to answer whether he stands pledged to- 
day, as he did in 1854, against the admission of any more Slave 
States into the Union, even if the people want them? " 

A. I do not now, nor ever did, stand pledged against the admis- 
sion of any more Slave States into the Union. 

Q. 3. "I want to know whether he stands pledged against the 
admission of a new State into the Union with such a Constitution 
as the people of that State may see fit to make? " 

A. I do not stand pledged against the admission of a new 
State into the Union, with such a Constitution as the people of that 
State may see fit to make. 

Q. 4. " I want to know whether he stands to-day pledged to 
the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia? " 

A. I do not stand to-day f)ledged to the abolition of slavery in 
the District of Columbia. 



L'di' FRKEPORT DEBATE. AU^irST 27. 18.i8. 

(^K 5. "I (U'siit' liiiii to answer wlictlicr lu- slinds plcdj^fd to 
tlu' pmliiliition of tlu' shivi- tradi* lu'twi-cii tlir diiri'icnt Hl.itcs? " 

.1. 1 ilo not stuiul plt'dged to tlif proliiliifujii of the •^lave trade 
betwi'on the ditrtTcnt States. 

(^. t». "1 di'siiv to know wlu'tluT he stands j)k'd>j[L'd U) prohibit 
slavery in all the Territories of tlie I'nited States, north as well as 
iMJiith of the Missouri Compromise line? " 

A. I am impliedly, if not expressly, pled«;ed to a lieiief in the 
riyht and <hitif of ('on<rre.ss to prohibit slavery in all the I'nited 
States Territories. 

<■/ 7. "I desire him to answer whetTier he is opposed to the 
actjuisition of any new territory unless slavery is first pnjhiliited 
therein? "' 

.1. I am not generally opposed to honest acquisition of terri- 
tory: :"id, in any given case, I would or would not oppose such ac- 
quisition, aeeordingly as I might think such acquisition would or 
would not aggravate the slavery (luestion amtmg ourselves. 

Now, my friends, it will lie perceived, upon an examination of 
these (juestions and answers, that so far I have only answered that 
I was not y /A (/</'(/ to this, that, or the other. The Jutlge has not 
framed his interrogatories to ask me anything more than this, and I 
have answered in strict accordance with the interrogatories, and 
have answered truly, that I am not phdgril at all upon any of the 
points to which I have answered. Hut I am not disposed to hang 
upon the exact form of his interrogatory. 1 Jitn rather disposed to 
tiike up at least some of these questions, and state what 1 really 
think upon them. 

As to the lirst one, in regard to the Fngitivi* -Slave law, I have 
never hesitated to say, and I do not ncjw hesitate to say, that 1 
think, under the Constitution of the United States, the people of 
the Southern States are entitled to a Congressional Fugitive-Slave 
law. Having said that, I have had nothing to say in regard to tli 
existing Fugitive-Slave law, further than that 1 think it shoidd have 
l)een framed so as to be free from some of the objections that 
[)ertain to it, without lessening its elllciency. .\nd inasmuch as 
we are not now in an agitation in regard to an alteration or modi- 
lication of that law, T would not be tlic man to introduce it as a 
new subject of agitation upon the general (juestion of slavery. 

In regard to the other (jtiestion, of whether I .am pledged to tli- 
udmission of anv more Slave States into the I'luon. I slate to you 



LINCOLN. 203 

very fraukly that I would be exceedingly sorry ever to be put in ii 
position of having to pass upon that question. I should be exceed- 
ingly glad to know that there would never be another Slave State 
admitted into the Union; but I must add that if slavery shall be 
kept out of the Territories during the Territorial existence of any 
one given Territory, and then the people shall, having a fair chance 
and a clear field, when they come to adopt the constitution, do such 
an extraordinar}' thing as to adopt a slave constitution, uninlluenced 
by the actual presence of the institution among them, I see no al- 
ternative, if we own the country, but to admit them into the Union. 

The third interrogatory is answered by the answer to the second, 
it being, as I conceive, the same as the second. 

The fourth one is in regard to the abolition of slavery in the 
District of Columbia. In relation to that, I have my mind A^ery 
distinctly made up. I should be exceedingly glad to see slavery 
abolished in the District of Columbia. I believe that Congress 
possesses the constitutional power to abolish it. Yet as a member 
of Congress, I should not, with my present views, be in favor of 
endeavoring to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, unless it 
would be upon these conditions: Fimt, that the abolition should be 
gradual; second, that it should be on a vote of the majority of quali- 
fied voters in the District; and tJiird, that compensation should be 
made to unwilling owners. With these three conditions, I confess I 
would be exceedingly glad to see Congress abolish slavery in the 
District of Columbia, and, in the language of Henry Clay, " sweep 
from our capital that foul blot upon our nation." 

In regard to the fifth interrogatory, I must say here, that as to 
the question of the abolition of the slave trade between the differ- 
ent States, I can truly answer, as I have, that I am pledged to noth- 
ing about it. It is a subject to which I have not given that mature 
consideration that would make me feel authorized to state a position 
so as to hold myself entirely bound by it. In other words, that 
question has never been prominently enough before me to induce 
me to investigate whether we really have the constitutional power 
to do it. I could investigate it if I had sufficient time to bring my- 
self to a conclusion upon that subject; but I have not done so, and 
I say so frankly to you here, and to Judge Douglas. 1 must sa}'', 
however, that if I should be of opinion that Congress does possess 
the constitutional power to abolish the slave-trade among the differ- 
ent States, I should still not be in favor of the exercise of that 



204 FREEPORT DEBATK. AlfJrsT ?:. 18,18. 

|K)wer, unless upon somi' conservative principle as I conceive it, 
akin to whaL I have said in relation to the abolition of slavery in 
the District of Columbia. 

My answer as to whether I desire that slavery should be prohibited 
in all the Territories of the United States, is full and explicit within 
itself, and cannot be made clearer by any comments of mine. So 
I supp«»se in regard to the (piestion whether I am opposed to the 
accpiisition of any more territory unless slavery is lirst prohiliited 
therein, my answer is such that I could add nothing by way of 
illustration, or making myself belter under.-slood, than the answer 
which I have placed in writing. 

Now iu all this the Judge has me, and he has me on the record. 
I suppose he had tlattered himself that I was really entertaining one 
set of opinions for one place, and another set for another place; 
that I was afraid to say at one pla(;e what I uttered at another. 
What I am saying here I suppo.se I say to a vast audience as 
strongly tending to Abolitionism as any audience in the State of 
Illinois, and I believe I am saying that which, if it would be oJfen- 
sive to any persons and render them enemies to myself, would be 
otfensive to persons in this audience. 

I now proceed to propound to the Judge the interrogatories, so 
far as I hive framed them. I will bring forward a new installment 
when I get them ready. I will bring them forward now, only reach- 
ing to numljcr four. 

The lirst one is: — 

Qitfstidii 1. If the people of Kansas shall, by means entirely un- 
objectionable in all other respects, adt)pt a State ciuistitulion, anil 
ask admission into the Union untler it, Ix fore they have the retpiisite 
number of inhabitants according to the English bill, — some ninety 
three thousand, — will you vote to admit them? 

Q. "1. Can the people of a United States Territory, in any lawful 
wu}', against the wish of any citizen of the United States, exclude 
slavery from its limits prior to the formation of a State constitu- 
tion ? 

Q. :{. If the Su[>ren>e Court of the United States shall decide 
that Stati'S cannot exelmle slavery from tiieir limits, are you in 
favor of acipiiescing in, adopting, and following, such decision as a 
rule of political action? 

Q. 1. Are you in favor of :ic(juiriiig additional territory, in ili- 
regard of how sui-h acquisition may alb-ct the nation on the slavt i , 
question? 



LINCOLN. 205 

THOSE "SPRINGFIELD" RESOLUTIONS. 

As introductory to these interrogatories which Judge Douglas 
propounded to me at Ottawa, he read a set of resolutions which he 
said Judge Trumbull and myself had participated in adopting, in 
the first Republican State Convention, held at Springfield in Octo- 
ber, 1854. He insisted that I and Judge Trumbull, and perhaps the 
entire Republican party, were responsible for the doctrines contained 
in the set of resolutions ^hich he read, and I understand that it was 
from that set of resolutions that he deduced the interrogatories 
which he propounded to me, using these resolutions as a sort of 
authority for propounding those questions to me. Now, I say here 
to-day that I do not answer his interrogatories because of their 
springing at all from that set of resolutions which he read. I an- 
swered them because Judge Douglas thought fit to ask them. I do 
not now, nor never did, recognize any responsibility upon m3'self in 
that set of resolutions. When I replied to him on that occasion, I 
assured him that I never had anything to do with them. I repeat 
here to-day that I never in any possible form had anything to do 
with that set of resolutions. 

It turns out, I believe, that those resolutions were never passed 
in any convention held in Springfield. It turns out that they were 
never passed at any convention or any public meeting that 1 had 
any part in. I believe it turns out, in addition to all this, that 
there was not, in the fall of 1854, any convention holding a session 
in Springfield, calling itself a Republican State Convention ; )t4 it is 
true there was a convention, or assemblage of men calling them- 
selves a convention, at Springfield, that did pass- some resolutions. 
But so little did I really know of the proceedings of that conven- 
tion, or what set of resolutions they had passed, though having a 
general knowledge that there had been such an assemblage of men 
there, that when Judge Douglas read the resolutions, I really did 
not know but they had been the resolutions passed then and there. 
I did not question that they were the resolutions adopted. For I 
could not bring myself to suppose that Judge Douglas could say 
what he did upon this subject without knou-inrj that it was true. I 
contented myself, on that occasion, with denying, as I truly could, 
all connection with them, not denying or affirming whether they 
were passed at Springfield. Now, it turns out that he had got hold 
of some resolutions passed at some convention or public meeting in 
Kane Count}'. I wish to say here, that I dont conceive that in any 



20(5 rUKKPOUr DKIJATK. ATiil'ST 27. 1S.-)S. 

fair and just iniiitl Ibis discdViTV relieves nic at all. I had just as 
muelj to do with the eonvL'iitiou in Kane County as that at Sprint.';- 
lii'ld. I am just as mueh responsible for the resolutions at Kane 
County as tliose at Springliekl, — the amount of the responsibility 
beinj; exaetly nothing in either ease; no more than there would be 
in regard to a set of resolutions passed in the moon. 

I ulludo to this extraordinary matter in this eanvass for some 
further purpo.se than anythinj; yet advanced. Judge Douglas ilid 
not m:ike his statement upon that occasion as matters that he be- 
lieved to be true, but he sUited them roundly as hiing (nn-, in such 
form us to pledge his veracity for their truth. When the whole 
matter turns out as it does, and when we consider who Judge 
Douglas is, — that he is a distinguished Senator of the United 
States; that he has served nearly twelve years as such; that his 
character is not at all limited as an ordinary Senator of the l'nite<l 
States, but that his nanu- has become of world-widt' renown, — it is 
nnisf t xtninnliiKiri/ that he should so far forget all the suggestions 
of justice to an adversary, or of prudence to himself, as to venture 
upon the assertion of that which the slightest investigation would 
have shown him to be wholly false. I can only account for his hav- 
ing done so upon the supposition that that evil genius which has at- 
tended him through his life, giving to him an apparent astonishing 
prosperity, such as to lead very many good men to doubt there be- 
ing an}' advantage in virtue over vice, — I say I can only account 
for it on tlie supposition that that evil genius has at last made up 
its mind to forsake him. 

And I may add that another extraordinary feature of the Jutlges 
conduct in this canvass — made more extraordinary by tliis inci- 
dent — is, that he is in the habit, in almost all the speeches hv 
makes, of charging falsehood upon his adversaries, myself and oth- 
ers. I now ask whether he is aide to find in anything that Judge 
Trumbull, for instance, has said, or in anything that I have said, a 
justification at all compared with what we have, in this instance, 
for that sort of vulgarity. 

AS TO THAT "CONSPIRACY," 

I have been in the hal)it of charging as a matter of Indief on 
my part that, in the introduction of the Nel)raska bill into Congress. 
there was a conspiracy to make slavery perpetual and national. I 
have arranged from time to time the evidence which establishes 
an<l proves th<' truth of this charge. I n curred to this charge at 



LINCOLN. 207 

Ottawa. I shall not now have time to dwell upon it at very great 
length; Init ina.smuch as Judge Douglas, in his reply of half an 
hour, made some points upon me in relation to it, I propose notic- 
ing a few of them. 

The Judge insists that, in the first speech I made, in which I very 
distinctlj' made that charge, he thought for a good while I was in fun ! 
tliat I was playful; that I was not sincere about it; and that he 
only grew angry and somewhat excited when he found that I insisted 
upon it as a matter of earnestness. He says he characterized it as 
a falsehood as far as I implicated his moral character in that transac- 
tion. Well, I did not know, till he presented that view, that I had 
implicated his moral character. He is very much in the habit, 
when he argues me up into a position I never thought of occupying, 
of very cosily saying he has no doubt Lincoln is " conscientious" in 
saying so. He should remember that I did not know but what he 
was ALTOGETHER " CONSCIENTIOUS" in that matter. I can conceive 
it possible for men to conspire to do a good thing, and I reall}' find 
nothing in Judge Douglas's course or arguments that is contrar}^ to, 
or inconsistent with, his belief of a conspiracy to nationalize and 
spread slaver}' as being a good and blessed thing; and so I hope he 
will understand that I do not at all question but that in all this 
matter he is entirely " conscientious." 

But to draw your attention to one of the points I made in this 
case, beginning at the beginning. When the Nebraska bill was in- 
troduced, or a short time afterward, b}' an amendment, I believe, it 
was provided that it must be considered " the true intent and mean- 
ing of this Act not to legislate slavery into any State or Territory, 
or to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly 
free to form and regulate their own domestic institutions in their 
own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States. " I 
liave called his attention to the fact that when he and some others 
began arguing that they were giving an increased degree of liberty 
to the people in the Territories over and above what they formerly 
had on the question of slavery, a question was raised whether the 
law was enacted to give such unconditional liberty to the people; 
and to test the sincerity of this mode of argument, Mr. Chase, of 
Ohio, introduced an amendment, in which he made the law — if the 
amendment were adopted — expressly declare that the people of 
the Territory should have the power to exclude slavery if they 
saw fit. 

I have asked attention also to the fact that Judge Douglas and 



208 FllEEPOKT DEBATE, AUGUST 27. 1858. 

those who ac'toil with him voted that anu-iuliiicnt down, notwith- 
standing it expressed exactly the thing tliey said was the tru«' in- 
tent and meaning of the hiw. I have called attention to the fact 
that in subsequent times a decision of the Supreme Court has l»een 
made, in which it has lu-en declared that a Territorial Legislature has 
no constitutional right t<> exclude slavery. And I have argued and 
said that for men who did intend tliat tlie pe(Ji)le of the Territory 
should have the right to exclude slavery al»solutely and uncondi- 
tionally, the voting down of Chase's amendment is wholly inex- 
plicable. It i8 a puzzle, a riddle. Hut I have said that with 
men who did look forward to such a ilecision. or who had it in con- 
templation that such a (U'cision of the Supreme Court would or 
might be made, the voting down of tiiat amcndnicnt would be jjcr- 
fectly rational an<l intelligible. It wouUl keep Congress from com- 
ing in collision with the decision when it was made. 

Anybody can conceive that if there was an intention or expecta- 
tion that such a decision was to follow, it would not be a very desira- 
ble party attitude to get into, for the Supreme Court — all or nearly 
all its membci-s belonging to the same party — to decide oneway, 
when the party in Congress had decided the other way. Hence it 
would be very rational for men expecting such a decision to keep 
the niche in that law clear for it. After pointing this out, I tell 
Judge Douglas that it looks to me as though here was the reason 
why Cha.ses amendment was voted down. I tell him that, as he did 
it, and knows why he did it, if it was done for a reason dillerent 
from this, he knows ichat that reason teas, anil can tell us ichat it iras. 
I tell him, also, it will be vastly more satisfactory to the country 
for him to give some other i)lau.sil)le. intelligible, reason irhji/ it was 
voted down than to stand upon his dignity and call people liars. 

Well, on Saturday he did make his answer, and what do you 
think it was? He says if 1 had only taken upon myself to tell the 
whole truth about that amenduu-nt of Chases, no explanation would 
have been necessary on his part, — or words to that etTect. Now, I 
say here that I am quite unconscious of having suppressed anything 
material to the case, and I am very frank to admit if there is any 
sound reason other than that which appeared to me material, it is 
(piite fair for him to present it. What reason does he propose? — 
That when Chase came forward with his amendment expressly au- 
thorizing the people to exclude slavery from the liujitsof every Terri- 
tory, General Cass proposed to Chase, if he (Chase) would aiUl to 
his amendment that the jieople should have the power to ininnlucc 



LINCOLN. 209 

or exclude, they would let it go. This is substantially all of his 
reply. And because Chase would not do that, they voted his 
amendment down. Well, it turns out, I believe, upon examination, 
that General Cass took some part in the little running debate upon 
that amendment, and then ran away and did not vote on it at all. Is 
not that the fact? So confident, as I think, was General Cass that 
there was a snake somewhere about, he chose to run away from the 
whole thing. This is an inference I draw from the fact that, 
though he took part in the debate, his name does not appear in the 
ayes and noes. But does Judge Douglas's reply amount to a satis- 
factory answer? [Cries of "Yes," "Yes," and "No," "No."] 
There is some little difference of opinion here. 

But I ask attention to a few more views bearing on the question 
of whether it amounts to a satisfactory answer. The men who were 
determined that that amendment should not get into the bill and 
spoil the place where the Dred Scott decision was to come in, sought 
an excuse to get rid of it somewhere. One of these wa3's — one of 
these excuses — was to ask Chase to add to his proposed amend- 
ment a provision that the people might introduce slavery if they 
wanted to. The}' very well knew Chase would do no such thing, 
that Mr. Chase was one of the men differing from them on the 
broad principle of his insisting that freedom was better than slavery, 
— a man who would not consent to enact a law, penned with his 
own hand, by which he was made to recognize slavery on the one 
hand, and liberty on the other, as precisely equal; and when they 
insisted on his doing this, they very well knew they insisted on that 
which he would not for a moment think of doing, and that they 
were only bluffing him. I believe (I have not, since he made his 
answer, had a chance to examine the journals or Congressional 
Globe and therefore speak from memory) — I believe the state of 
the bill at that time, according to parliamentary rules, was such 
that no member could propose an additional amendment to Chase's 
amendment. I rather thin^i this is the truth, — the Judge shakes 
his head. Very well. I would like to know, then, if tliey wanted 
Chase's amendment fixed over, xaliy som,ehody else could not have offered 
to do itf If they wanted it amended, why did they not offer the 
amendment? Why did they stand there taunting and quibbling at 
Chase? Why did they not put it in themselves? 

But to put it on the other ground : Suppose that there was such 
an amendment offered, and Chase's was an amendment to an amend- 
ment; until one is disposed of, by parliamentary law you cannot pile 
14 



210 FREEPORT DEBATE. AUGUST 27. 1858. 

nnotluT on. Tlu'U all these gentU'im-n had to do was to vote Chase's 
on. and then, in liie aiuendeil form in whieh the whole slootl, add 
their own ainendnjent to it, if they wanted to put it in that shape. 
Tliis was all they were ohlif^a-il to do. and the ayes and noes show 
that there were thirty-six who voted it down, af:;ainst ten who voti-d 
in favor of it. The thirty-six ludd entire sway hnd control. They 
could in some form or other liavi- put that hill in the exact shape 
they wanted. If there was a rule preventin<j their amending it at 
the time, they couUl pass that, and then, Chase's amendment being 
merged, put it in the shape they wanted. They did not choose to 
do so. !)ut they went into a qnilible with Chase to get him to add 
what they kiu'w he would not add, and because he would not, they 
stand upon that llimsy pretext for voting down what they argued 
was the meaning and intent of their own bill. They left room 
thereby for this Dred Scott decision, which goes very far to make 
slavery national throughout the United States. 

I pass one or two points 1 have, because my time will very soon 
expire; but I must be allowed to say that Judge Douglas recurs 
again, as he did upon one or two other occasions, to the enormity 
of Lincoln, — an insignificant individual like Lincoln, — uiton 
his ipse dixit charging a conspirac}' upon a large number of 
members of Congress, the Supreme Court, and two Presidents, 
to nationalize slavery. I want to say that, in the fust place, 
I have made no charge of this sort upon mj' ipse dixit. I have only 
arrayed the evidence tending to prove it, and presented it to the 
understanding of others, saying what 1 think it proves, but giving 
you the means of judging whether it proves it or not. This is pre- 
cisely what I have done. I have not placed it upon my ij>sr dixit at 
all. 

On this occasion, I wish to recall his attt'ution to a piece of 
evidence which I brought forward at Ottawa on Saturday, showing 
that he hatl nnide substantially the same charge against substantially 
the samr pr/stiiis, excluding lus dear Self from the category. I ask 
him to give some attention to the evidence which I lirougliL forward 
that he himself had discovered a " fatal blow being struck" against 
tlie right of the people to exclude slavery from their limits, which 
fatal blow he assumed as in evidence in an article in the Washing- 
ton fiiioii, published '• by authority." I ask by whose authority? 
lie discovers a similar or identical provision in tlie Lecompton Con- 
stitution. Made by whom? The framers of that Constitution. 
Advocated by whom? By all the mcmbcrsof the party in the uatiun, 



DOUGLAS. 211 

who advocated the introduction of Kansas into the Union under the 
Lcconipton Constitution. 

I have asked his attention to the evidence that he arrayed to 
prove tliat such a fatal blow was being struck, and to the facts 
which he brought forward in support of that charge, — being identi- 
cal with tlie one which he thinks so villanous in me. lie pointed it, 
not at a newspaper editor mere!}', but at the President and his Cabi- 
net and tlie members of Congress advocating the Lecompton Consti- 
tution and those framing that instrument. I must again be 
permitted to remind him tliat although my ipse dixit may not be as 
great as his, yet it somewhat reduces the force of his calling my 
attention to the fnorinitij of my making a like charge against him. 

Go on. Judge Douglas. 



MR. DOUGLAS'S REPLY. 

Ladies and Gentlemen: The silence with which 3'ou have lis- 
tened to Mr. Lincoln during his hour is creditable to tliis vast 
audience, composed of men of various political parties. Nothing is 
more honorable to any large mass of people assembled for the pur- 
pose of a fair discussion than that kind and respectful attention 
that is yielded, not only to your political friends, but to those who 
are opposed to you in politics. 

I am glad that at last I have brought Mr. Lincoln to the con- 
clusion that he had better define his position on certain political 
questions to which I called his attention at Ottawa. He there 
showed no disposition, no inclination, to answer them. I did not 
present itlle questions for him to answer, merely for my gratifica- 
tion. I laid the foundation for those interrogatories by showing 
that they constituted the platform of the party whose nominee he is 
for the Senate. I did not presume that I had the right to catechise 
him as I saw proper, unless I showed that his party, or a majority of 
it, stood upon the platform and were in favor of the propositions, 
upon which my questions were based. I desired simply to know, 
inasmuch as he had been nominated as the first, last, and only 
choice of his party, whether he concurred in the platform which 
that party had adopted for its government. In a few moments I 
will proceed to review the answers which he has given to these inter- 
rogatories; but, in order to relieve his anxiety, I will first respond 



212 FREEPOHT DEBATE, AUGUST 27, 1858. 

to these wliirh he lias presented to ine. Mark you, he has not pre- 
sented interrogatories wliich have ever received the sanction of the 
party witli wiiich I am acting, and hence he has no other foundation 
for them than his own iiiriosity. 

1)(»L'GLAS'S ANSWERS. 

First, he desires to know if tlie peopli- of Kansas shall rmni a 
coiistilutiun l»y means entirely proper and unolijeelion ible, and ask 
admission into thi' I'nion as a State, before lluy have Ihe reijuisile 
population for a memlK-r of Congress, whelhi-r I will vote fur llial 
admission. Well, now, 1 regret exceedingly that lie did not answer 
that interrogatory himself lu-fore he put it to me, in order thai we 
might understand, anil not l»e h-ft lo infer, on which side iie is. 
.^Ir. Trumbull, during the last .session of Congress, voted from the 
beginning to the end against the admission of Oregon, altlujugh a 
Free State, because she had not the requisite population for a mem- 
ber of Congress. Mr. Trumbull would not consent, under any cir- 
cumstances, to let a State, Free or Slave, come into the L'nion until 
it had the reciuisite population. As Mr. Trumi)ull is in the Held, 
lighting lor .Mr. [jincoln. I would like to have Mr. Lincoln answer 
Ids own question. an<l tell me whether he is lighting Tnimltidl on 
that issue or not. 

Hut I will answer his (iuesti(Mi. In reference to Kansas, it is 
my opinion that as she has population enough to constitute a Slave 
State, she has people enough for a Free State. I will not make 
Kansas an exceptional case to the other States of the Union. 1 
hold it to be a sound rule, of universal application, to re([uire a 
Territory to contain the requisite population for a member of Con- 
gress iiefore it is admitted as a State into the Union. I made that 
proposition in the Senate in 1850, and I renewed it during the last 
session, in a bill providing that no Territory of the United States 
should form a constitution ami apply for admission until it lun! the 
recjuisite population. On another occasion I [)roposi'(l that neither 
Kansas nor any other Territory should be admitted until it had tlii' 
recjuisite population. Congress did not adopt any of my proposi- 
tions containing this general rule, but did make an exception of 
Kansas. I will stand by that exception. Hither Kansas must come 
in a.« a Imcc State, with whatever population she may have, or the 
rnh; must lu' applied to all the other Territories alike. I therefore 
answer at once, that, it having been decided that Kansas has people 
i'liough for a Slave State, I hold that she has enough for a Free 
State. 



DOUGLAS. 213 

I hope Mr. Lincoln i.s satisfied with my answer ; and now 1 
would like to get his answer to his own interrogatory, — whether or 
not he will vote to admit Kansas before she has the requisite popu- 
lation. I want to know whether he will vote to admit Oregon before 
that Territory has the requisite population. Mr. Trumbull will not, 
and the same reason that commits Mr. Trumbull against the admis- 
sion of Oregon, commits him against Kansas, even if she should 
apply for admission as a Free State. If there is any sincerity, any 
truth, in the argument of Mr. Trumbull in the Senate, against the 
admission of Oregon because she had not 'j;3,4!i() i)eople, although 
her population was larger than that of Kansas, he stands pledged 
against, the admission of both Oregon a,nd Kansas until they have 
93,420 inhabitants. I would like Mr. Lincoln to answer this ques- 
tion. 1 would like him to take his own medicine. If he differs 
with Mr. Trumbull, let him answer his argument against the admis- 
sion of Oregon, instead of poking questions at me. 

ANSWER TO THE SECOND QUESTION. 

The next question propounded to me by Mr. Lincoln is, Can the 
people of a Territory in any lawful way, against the wishes of any 
citizen of the United States, exclude slavery from their limits prior 
to the formation of a State constitution ? I answer emphatically, 
as Mr. Lincoln has heard me answer a hundred times from every 
stump in Illinois, that in my opinion the psople of a Territory can, 
by lawful means, exclude slavery from their limits prior to the 
formation of a State constitution. Mr. Lincoln knew that I had 
answered that question over and over again. He heard me argue 
the Nebraska bill on that principle all over the State in 1854:, in 
1855, and in 1856, and he has no excuse for pretending to be in 
doubt as to my position on that question. It matters not what way 
the Supreme Court may hereafter decide as to the abstract question 
whether slavery may or may not go into a Territory under the 
Constitution, the people have the lawful means to introduce it or 
exclude it as they please, for the reason that slavery cannot exist a 
day or an hour anywhere, unless it is supported by local police reg- 
ulations. Those police regulations can only be established by the 
local legislature ; and if the people are opposed to slavery, they will 
elect representatives to that body who will by unfriendly legislation 
effectually prevent the introduction of it into their midst. If, on 
the contrary, they are for it, their legislation will favor its exten- 
sion. Hence, no matter what the decision of the Supreme Court 



•_'l i FllKKPOKT DKHATE. Al'tirST 27, 1858. 

may be ou that abstract question, still the right of the people to 
make n Slave Territory or a Free Territory is perfect and couplete 
under the Nebraska bill. 1 hupi' .^l^, Liiir(jlii di-i-iiLs my answer .sat- 
isfaitoiy oil ihal point. 

Ill this connection, I will notice the charge which he has intro- 
(Irrci'd in rt-lalion to Mr. Chases amendment. I thoujilit that I had 
chased tliat amendment out of Mr. Lincoln's brain at Ottawa ; but 
it seems that it still liaunts his imagination, and he is not yet satis- 
fied. 1 had supposed that lie would be ashamed to press that ques- 
tion further. He is a lawyer, and has Iteen a member of Congress, 
and hasoecu[)ied his time and amused you by telling you about par- 
liamentary proceedings. He ought to have known better than to 
try to i)alm olF his miserable impositions upon this intelligent audi- 
ence. The Nebraska l>ill provided that the legislative power and 
authority of the said Territory should extend to all rightful subjects 
of legislation consistent with the organic act and the Constitution of 
the United States. It did not make any exception as to slavery, 
but gave all the power that it was possil)le for Congress to give, 
without violating the Constitution, to the Territorial legislature, 
with no exception or limitation on the subject of slavery at all. 
The language of that bill which I have quoted, gave the full power 
and the full auth<jrity over the subject of slavery, atlirmatively and 
negatively, to introduce it or exclude it, so far as the Constitution 
of the United States would permit. What more could Mr. Chase 
give by his amendment? Nothing. lie offered his amendment for 
the identical purpose for whit-h Mr. Lincoln is using it, — to enable 
demagogues in the country to try and deceive the people. 

His amendment was to this effect. It provided that the legisla- 
ture should have the power to exclude slavery ; and (Jeneral Cass 
suggested, "Why not give the power to introduce as well as 
exclude? " The answer was. They have the power already in the 
l»ill to do both. Chase was afraid his amendment would be adopted 
if he put the alternative proposition, and so make it fair both ways, 
but would not yield. He olfered it for the purposi' of having it re- 
jected. He offered it, as he has himself avowed over and over again, 
simply to make capital out of it for the stump. He expi'cted that 
it would be capital for small p((Iiticians in the country, and that 
lln-y would make an elb>rl to deceive the people with it ; and he was 
not mistaken, for liincoln is carrying out the plan admirably. Lin- 
«-oIn knows that the Nebraska bill, wilhout Chase's amendment, 
g:ive all llic power which the CoMstitution would )»crniit Coulij 



DOUCiLAS. 215 

Congress confer any more? Could Congress go beyond the Consti- 
tution of tlie country? "We gave all — a full grant, with no exception 
in regard to slavery one way or the other. We left that question as 
we left all others, to be decided b}' the people for themselves, just 
as they pleased. I will not occupy my time on this question. I 
have argued it before, all over Illinois. I have argued it in this 
beautiful city of Freeport ; I have argued it in the North, the South, 
the East, and the West, avowing the same sentiments and the same 
principles. I have not been afraid to avow my sentiments up here 
for fear I would be trotted down into Eg3'pt. 

ANSWER TO THE THIRD QUESTION. 

The third question which Mr. Lincoln presented is. If the Su- 
preme Court of the United States shall decide that a State of this 
Union cannot exclude slaver}^ from its owu limits, will I submit to 
it? I am amazed that Lincoln should ask such a question. [Voice: 
" A schoolboy knows better."] Yes, a schoolboy does know better. 
Mr. Lincoln's object is to cast an imputation upon the Supreme 
Court. He knows that there never was but one man in America, 
claiming any degree of intelligence or decency, who ever for a 
moment pretended such a thing. It is true that the Washington 
Union, in an article published on the 17th of last December, did 
put forth that doctrine, and I denounced the article on the floor of 
the Senate, in a speech which Mr. Lincoln now pretends was against 
the President. The Union had claimed that slavery had a right 
to go into the Free States, and that any provision in the Constitu- 
tion or laws of the Free States to the contrary were null and void. 
I denounced it in the Senate, as I said before, and I was the first 
man who did. Lincoln's friends, Trumbull, and Seward, and Hale, 
and Wilson, and the whole Black Ftepublican side of the Senate, 
were silent. They left it to me to denounce it. 

And what was the reply made to me on that occasion? Mr. 
Toombs, of Georgia, got up and undertook to lecture me on the 
ground that I ought not to have deemed the article worthy of notice, 
and ought not to have replied to it; that there was not one man, 
woman, or child south of the Potomac, in any Slave State, who did 
not repudiate any such pretension, Mr. Lincoln knows that that 
reply was made on the spot, and yet now he asks this question. 
He might as well ask me, Suppose Mr. Lincoln should steal a 
horse, would I sanction it , and it would be as genteel in me to ask 
him, in the event he stole a horse, what ought to be done with him. 



2 It; FI{RF.I*»>1;T HKIJATK. august 27. 1*58. 

Hi' ftisls all impulatktii UjHUi tlu' Siipreme t'oiirt of tlio United 
Statt's, liv siiiiposinf^j lliut tlu-y would violate tlie I'oiistitutioii of the 
United States. I tell him that such a thing is not possihle. It 
Aould l»e an act of moral treason that no mnn on the heiicli could 
ever descend to. Mr. Lincoln himself would never in his partisan 
feelings so far forget what was right as to he guilty of such an act. 

ANSWKU TO TIIK FOIKTIl glKSTION. 

The fourth (piestioii of Mr. Lincoln is. Are you in favor of 
acijuiring additional territory, m disregard as to how such acquisi- 
tion may atlci-t the Union on the Shivery (luestion? This question 
is very ingeniously and cunningly j)iit. 

Tile Bhu-k Hcpultlican creed lays it down expressly that under 
no circumstances shall we accjuire any more territory, unless slavery 
is first prohibited in the country. I ask Mr. Lincoln whether he is 
in favor of tliat proposition. Are you [addressing Mr. Lincoln] op- 
posed to the acquisition of any more territory, under an}' circum- 
stances, uidess slavery is prohil)ited in it? That he does not like 
to answer. When I ask iiim whether he stands up to that article in 
the platform of his party, be turns, Yankee-fashion, and without 
answering it, asks me whether I am in favor of ac(iuiring territor}' 
without regard to bow it may atl'ect the Union on the slavery (jues- 
tion. I answer tliat whenever it becomes necessary, in our growth 
and progress, to acquire more territory, that I am in favor of it, 
without reference to the ([uestion of slavery; and when we have 
accjuired it, I will leave the people free to do as they please, either 
to make it slave or free territory, as the)' prefer. It is idle to tell 
me or you that we have territory enough. Our fathers supposed 
that we bad enough when our territoiy extended to the Mississippi 
River; but a few years' growth and expansion satislied them that 
we needed more, and the Louisiana Territory, from the West branch of 
the ^Ulssissippi to the British |)ossessions, was acquired. Then we 
acfjuiri'd Oregon, then California and Xew Mexico. We have enough 
now for the present; hut this is a y<»ung and a growing nation. It 
swarms as of ten as a hive of bees; and as new swarms are turned 
out each year, there must be hives in which they can gather and 
make their honey. 

In less than fifteen 3'ears, if the same progress that has distin- 
guished this country for the last fifteen years continues, ever}' foot 
of vacant laiicl Ix-tween this and the Pacific Ocean, owneil by the 
Uiiiti'd Stit.". will li cnpifd Will you not continue to increase 



DOUGLAS. 217 

at the end of fifteen years as well as now? I tell you, increase, 
and multiply, and expand, is the law of this nation's existence. 
You cannot limit tiiis great Uepuhlic by mere boundary lines, saying, 
" Thus far shalt tliou go, and no farther." Any one of you gentle- 
men might as well say to a son twelve years old that he is big 
enough, and must not grow any larger; and in order to prevent his 
growth, put a hoop around him to keep him to his present size. 
What would be the result ? Either the hoop must burst and be rent 
asunder, or the child must die. 80 it would be with this great 
nation. With our natural increase, growing with a rapidity unknown 
in any other part of the globe, with the tide of emigration that is 
fleeing from despotism in the old world to seek refuge in our own, 
there is a constant torrent pouring into this countiy that requires 
more land, more territory upon which to settle; and just as fast as 
our interests and our destiny require additional territory in the North, 
in the South, or on the islands of the ocean, I am for it; and when we 
acquire it, will leave the people, according to the Nebraska bill, free 
to do as they please on the subject of slavery and every other 
(pu'stiou. 

I trust now that Mr. Lincoln will deem himself answered on his 
four points. He racked his brain so much in devising these four 
questions that he exhausted himself, and had not strength enough 
to invent the others. As soon as he is able to hold a council with 
his advisers, Lovejo}', Farnsworth, and Fred Douglass, he will frame 
and propound others. [Voices: "Good, good."] You Black Re- 
publicans who say good, I have no doubt think that they are all 
good men. 

I Lave reason to recollect that some people in this country think 
that Fred Douglass is a very good man. The last time I came here 
to make a speech, while talking from the stand to you, people of 
Freeport, as I am doing to-day, I saw a carriage — and a magnifi- 
cent one it was, — drive up and take a position on the outside of the 
crowd; a beautiful young lady was sitting on the box-seat, whilst 
Fred Douglass and her mother reclined inside, and the owner of the 
carriage acted as driver. I saw this in your own town. [Voices: 
"What of it? "] All I have to say of it is this, that if you. Black 
Republicans, think that the negro ought to be on a social equality 
with j'our wives and daughters, and ride in a carriage with your 
wife, whilst 3'ou drive the team, you have a perfect right to do so. 

I am told that one of Fred Douglass's kinsmen, another rich 
black negro, is now traveling in this part of the State, making 



lilS FKKEPORT DEBATE, AUGUST 27, 1858. 

speeclu's fi»r his frii-ml 1 Jiicoln as the champion of hhick men. 
[Voices : " W'lial have you to say aj^aiiist it ? "J .\!i I have to say 
on tliat suliject is, that those of you who believe that the ne<;ro is 
your ecjual and oujjht to be on an eciuality with y(ju socially, politi- 
cally, and lejjally, have a right to entertain those opinions, and of 
course will vote for Mr. Lincoln. 

.\S TO THE " SI'RIN(!FIEI.D " llESOLUTION. 

1 have a word to say on Mr. Lincoln's answer to the interroga- 
tories I'ontained in my speeeh at Ottawa, and which lie has pre- 
tenileil to reply to here to-(iay. Mr. Lincoln niakes a great parade 
of the fact that I (juoted a platform as having been adopted by tin- 
IJIaek Hepul)liean party at Springfield in 1854, which, it turns out, 
was adopted at another place. Mr. Ijincoln loses sight of the thing 
il.->elf in his ecstasies over the mistake 1 made in stating the place 
where it was done. He thinks that that platform was not adopted 
on the right "spot." 

When I put the direct questions to Mr. Lincoln to ascertain 
whether he now stands pledgeil to that creed, — to the unconditional 
repeal of the Fugitive-Slave law, a refusal to admit any more Slave 
States into the Union, even if the people want them, a determination 
to ajjply the Wilmot Proviso, not only to all the territory we now 
have, but all that we may hereafter acijuire, — he refused to answer; 
and his followers say, in excuse, that the resolutions upon which I 
based my interrogatories were not adopted at the ^^ right spot." 
Lincoln and his political friends are great on " spots.'' In Congress, 
as a representative of this State, he declared the Mexican war to l)e 
unjust and infamous, and would not support it, or acknowledge his 
own country to be right in the contest, because he said that Ameri- 
can blood was not shed on American soil in the " n'l/ftt sjmt." And 
n<nv he cannot answer the questions 1 put to him at Ottawa because 
the resolutions I read were not adopted at the " //y/// spot." It 
may be po.ssible that I was led into an error as to the s/mt on which 
the resolutions I then read were proclaimed, l)ut I was not, and am 
not, in error as to the fact of their forming the basis of the creed of 
the I'epublican parly when that party was lirst orgainzed. 

I will state to you the evidence I hatl, and upon which I relied 
for my Htat«Mnent that the resolutions in (piestion were adopted at 
Springlield on tlie fitli of October, IS')!. Although I was aware 
that such resolutions had i)een passed in this district, and nearly all 
the Northern ('(mgressional Districts and County Con vi-nt ions, 1 had 



noUGLAS. 210 

not noticed whether or not they had been adopted Vjy any State 
Convention. In 1850, a debate arose in Congress between Major 
Thomas L. Harris, of the iSpringfiekl District, and Mr. Norton, of 
the Joliet District, on political matters connected with our State, in 
the course of which, Major Harris quoted those resolutions as having 
been passed by the first Republican State Convention that ever as- 
sembled in Illinois. I knew that Major Harris was remarkable for 
his accuracy, that he was a very conscientious and sincere- man, 
and I also noticed that Norton did not question the accuracy of 
this statement. I therefore took it for granted that it was so ; and 
the other day when I concluded to use the resolutions at Ottawa, I 
wrote to Charles H. Lanphier, editor of the State Register at 
Springfield, calling his attention to them, telling him that I had 
been informed that Major Harris was l^ing sick at Springfield, and 
desiring him to call upon him and ascertain all the facts concerning 
the resolutions, the time and the place where they were adopted. 
In repi}', Mr. Lanphier sent me two copies of his paper, which 1 
have here. The first is a copy of the State Register, published 
at Springfield, Mr. Lincoln's own town, on the 16th of October, 
1854, only eleven days after the adjournment of the Convention, 
from which I desire to read the following : — 

" During the late discussions in this city, Lincoln made a speech, to 
which Judge Douglas replied. In Lincoln's speech he took the broad 
ground that, according to the Declaration of Independence, the whites 
and blacks are equal. From this he drew the conclusion, which he 
several times repeated, that the white man had no right to pass laws for 
the government of the black man withcut the nigger's consent. This 
speech of Lincoln's was heard and applauded b}^ all the Abolitionists as- 
sembled in Springfield. So soon as Mr. Lincoln was done speaking, Mr. 
Codding arose, and requested all the delegates to the Black Republican 
Convention to withdraw into the Senate chamber. They did so; and after 
long deliberation, they laid down the following Abolition platform as the 
platform on which they stood. We call the particular attention of all our 
readers to it." 

Then follows the identical platform, word for word, which I read 
at Ottawa. Now, that was published in Mr. Lincoln's own town, 
eleven days after the Convention was held, and it has remained on 
record up to this day never contradicted. 

When I quoted the resolutions at Ottawa and questioned Mr. 
Lincoln in relation to them, he said that his name was on the com- 
mittee that reported them, but he did not serve, nor did he think 
he served, because he was, or thought he was, in Tazewell County 



220 KKKKP«»irr DKI'.A'l'K, AliJlST 27, 1>C.8. 

:il Ihe time the Coiivfiititui was in st'ssioii. Ik' did n<>t duny that 
tilt' ivsolutions wfie passed by the Sj)iiiij;liekl t'oiiventii»ii. lie did 
not know hetler, and evidently thoiij^ht that they were ; l»ut after- 
ward hia friends deidared tliat they had discovered that they varieil 
in some repeets from the resohitions passed hy that Convention. I 
have shown yon tliat I had <:ood eviih-nee for helievinj:; tliat tlie re 
sohitions had been passed at Sprin*;fiehl. Mr. Jiineohi oni:ht to 
have known better ; but not a word is said al)oiit his i<;iioranee on 
the subject, whilst I, notwithstandinj; the circumstances, am accused 
of forger}'. 

l'I,.\TFOR.M OF lsr>4. 

Now, 1 will show yoii that if I have made a mistake as to the 
place where these resolutions were adopted, — and when I ^el <lowu 
to ^^priugtield I will investiijate the matter, and see whether or not 
I have,— that the principles they enunciate were adopted as the 
Black Kepuljlican j)latform [Voices : " White, white"], in the vari- 
ous counties and C«)ngressional Districts throughout the north end 
of" the State in 18r)4. This platform was ado[)ted in nearly every 
county that gave a Ulack Repul)lican majority for the Legislature 
in that year, and here is a man [pointing to Mr. Denio, who sat on 
the stand near Deacon Bross] who knows as well as any living man 
that it was the creed of the Black Republican party at that time. 1 
would be willing to call Denio as a witness, or any other honest man 
belonging to that i)arty. I will now read the resolutions adopted at 
the Kockford Convention On the 30th of August, 1854, which 
nominated Washburne for Congress. You elected him on the fol- 
lowing platform : — 

*' Ilisulnd, Tiiat th<' continued and increasing agffn'ssions of slavery in 
our country are destructive of tin* best riglits of a free people, and that 
such aggressions cannot he succes-sfully resisted witliuiit the uniti'd puli- 
licnl action of all good men 

" limolrnl, That tlie cili/.ensof ihe United States hold in their hands 
I)oaci'ful. constitutional, and ellicienl remedy against the oncroaclinunts 
of the slave power. — the ballot-bcv: and if that remedy is bohlly and 
wisely ap[)lied, the principles of liberty and eternal justice will be 
('Stablished. 

" Hrjiulnd, That we accept this issue forced u|M)n us by the slave 
jKjwer, and. in defense of freedom, will co-operate and be known as 
Itopiihlicans. pledged to the accomi)lishment of the fe/juwitig puri)oses:— ^ 

"Tobrin;: the A<lministration of the (iovernmenl back to the control 
of first principles ; to restore Kansas and Ne\)raska to the ]>osition of Free 
Territories: t<> repeal anil entirely abrogate the Fugitive-Slave law; to 
restrict slavery l<> those States in which it exists ; to prohibit the adinis- 



DOUGLAS. 221 

sion of anj' more Slave States into the Union ; to exclude slavery from all 
the Territories over which the General Government has exclusive jurisdic- 
tion ; and to resist the acquisition of any more Territories, unless the 
introduction of slavery therein forever shall have been prohibited. 

'' liesolrcd, That in furtherance of these principles we will use such 
constitutional and lawful means as shall seem best adapted to their ac- 
complishment, and that we will support no man for office under the Gen- 
eral or State Government who is not positively committed to the support 
of these principles, and whose personal character and conduct is not a 
guarantee that he is reliable, and shall abjure all party allegiance and ties. 

''Resolved, That we cordially invite persons of all former political par- 
ties whatever, in favor of the object expressed in the above resolutions, 
to unite with us in carrying them into eflFect." 

"VYell, you think that is a ver}' good platform, do you not ? If 
3'ou do, if you approve it now, and think it is all right, you will not 
join with those men who say that I libel you by calling these your 
principles, will you ? Now, Mr. Lincoln complains ; Mr. Lincoln 
charges that I did you and him injustice by saying that this was the 
platform of j-our party. I am told that Washburne made a speech 
in Galena last night, in which he abused me awfully for bringing to 
light this platform, on which he was elected to Congress. He 
thought that yon had forgotten it, as he and Mr. Lincohi desires to. 
He did not deny but that you had adopted it, and that he had sub- 
scribed to and -was pledged by it, but he did not think it was fair to 
call it up and remind the people that it was their platform. 

But I and glad to find that you are more honest in your Aboli- 
tionism than your leaders, by avowing that it is your platform, and 
right in your opinion. 

In the adoption of that platform, you not only declared that you 
would resist the admission of any more Slave States, and work for 
the repeal of the Fugitive-Slave law, but 3'ou pledged 3'ourselves not 
to vote for any man for State or Federal offices who was not com- 
mitted to these principles. You were thus committed. Similar 
resolutions to those were adopted in your county Convention here, 
and now with your admissions that they are your platform and em- 
body your sentiments now as they did then, what do you think of 
Mr. Lincoln, 3-our candidate for the United States Senate, who is 
attempting to dodge the responsibility of this platform, because it 
was not adopted in the right spot. I thought that it was adopted 
in Springfield ; but it turns out it was not, that it was adopted at 
Rockford, and in the various counties which comprise this Con- 
gressional District. When I get into the next district, I will show 
that the same platform was adopted there, and so on through the 



•222 FKKKPoirr IH:itATK, AI'GUST 27, 1858. 

State, until I nail tlir responsibility of it upon the liack of tin- Mlaek 
lu-puhru'aii party throuj^liout the State. 

J ]'<ii<;. — Coulil n t you modify, and call it brown ? 

^fl■. Dnughis. — Not n bit. I thought that you were l)econiing a 
little brown wh«'n your members in Congress voted f(!r the Critten- 
den-Montgomery Itill ; but since you have Ijacked out from that 
]K)sitiou and gone Itack U) Abolitionism you are black, ami not 
brown. 

Gentlemen. T have shown you what your platform was in lX7>i. 
You still adhere to it. The same platform was adopted by nearly 
all the counties where the Black Republican party had a majority in 
1854. I wish now to call your attention to the action of your yv[)- 
resentatives in the Tjegislature when they assembled together at 
Springfield. In the first placi', 30U must remember that this was 
the organization of a new party. It is so declared in the resolutions 
themselves, which say that you are going to dis.solve all old party 
ties and call the new party Kepublican. The old Whig party was 
to have its throat cut from ear to ear, and the Democratic party was 
to l)e annihilated and blotted out of existence, whilst in lieu of 
these parties the Black Republican party was to be organized on 
this Abolition platform. ' You know who the chief leaders were in 
lircaking up and destroying the.se two great parties. ]jincoln on the 
one hand, and Trumbull on the other, being disappointed politicians, 
and having retired or l)een driven to obscurity by an outraged con- 
stituency l«'cause of their political sins, formed a scheme to Abo- 
litionize J-he two parties, and had the Old Line Whigs and Old Line 
Democrats captive, Itoi.nd hand and foot, into the A1)olition camp. 
<iid<lings, Cha.se, Fred Douglass, and Lovejoy were here to christen 
tlu-m whenever they were brought in. Lincoln went to work to dis- 
solve the Old Line Whig l)arty. Clay was tlead ; and although the 
sod wa.s not 3'et green on his grave, this man undertook to bring 
into disrepute those great Compromise measures of IS.')!!, witii 
wliich Clay and Webster were identified. 

I'p to 1854 the old Whig party and tlie I>cniocratie j)arty had 
stood on a common platfonn so far as this slavery (pu'stion was 
concerned. You Whigs and we Democrats dilb-red about the bank, 
the tariir, distribution, the specie circular, and the sub-treasury, 
luit we agreed on this slavery (piestion, and the true mode of i)re- 
Kerving the ]»eac(* and harmony of the Union. The Compromise 
measureH of iSaO were introduced by Clay, were defended by Wel)- 
Bter, an<l supported by Cass, and were appnncd by Fillmore, and 



DOUGLAS. 223 

sanctioned by the National men of Itotli parties. They constituted 
a common plank upon which both Whigs and Democrats stood. In 
1852 the Whig party, in its last National Convention at Baltimore, 
indorsed and approved these measures of Clay, and so did the Nat- 
ional Convention of the Democratic party held that same year. 
Thus the Old Line Whigs and the Old Line Democrats stood pledged 
to the great principle of self-government, which guarantees to the 
people of each Territory the right to decide the slaver}'' question f(3r 
themselves. In 1854, after the death of Clay and Webster, Mr. 
Lincoln, on the part of the W^higs, undertook to Abolitionize the 
Whig party, by dissolving it, transferring the members into the 
Abolition camp, and making them train under Giddings, Fred 
Douglass, Lovejoy, Chase, Farnsworth, and other Abolition leaders. 
Trumbull undertook to dissolve the Democratic party by taking old 
Democrats into the Abolition camp. Mr. Lincoln was aided in his 
efforts by many leading Whigs throughout the State, your member 
of Congress, Mr. Washburne, being one of the most active. Trum- 
bull was aided by many renegades from the Democratic party, 
among whom were John Wentworth, Tom Turner, and others, with 
whom you are familiar. 

[Mr. Turner, who was one of the moderators, here interposed, 
and said that he had drawn the resolutions which Senator Douglas 
had read.] 

Mr. Douglas. — Yes, and Turner saj'S that he drew these reso- 
lutions. [Voices: "Hurrah for Turner," "Hurrah for Douglas. "] 
That is right ; give Turner cheers for drawing the resolutions if you 
approve them. If he drew those resolutions, he will not den}' that 
they are the creed of the Black Republican party, 

3L: Turner. — They are our creed exactly. 

Mr. Douglas. — And yet Lincoln denies that he stands on them. 
Mr. Turner says that the creed of the Black Republican party is the 
admission of no more Slave States, and yet Mr. Lincoln declares 
that he would not like to be placed in a position where he would 
have to vote for them. All I have to say to friend Lincoln is, that 
I do not think there is much danger of his being placed in such a 
position. As Mr. Lincoln would be very sorry to be placed in such 
an embarrassing position as to be ol)liged to vote on the admission 
of anymore Slave States, I propose, out of mere kindness, to re- 
lieve him from any such necessity. 

When the bargain between Lincoln and Trumbull was completed 
for Abolitioni^ing the "Whig and Democratic parties, they ' ' spread " 



L'L' I KUKEPORT DEBATK, AroUST ..'7, 1858. 

over the State, Lincoln still pretondiii'^ to l»e an Old Line ^^'lug, in 
order to "rope in "the Whigs, and Tninihiill pretending to be as 
g«x>d a Democrat as he ever was, in order to coax the Democrats 
over into the Aholitioii ranks. They played the part that "decoy 
ducks ''play down on tlie l*otomac River. In that part of the 
ct»untry they m.dve artificial ducks, and put them on the water in 
places where the wild ducks are to be found, for the purpose of 
decoying them. Well, Lincohi and Tnunhull played the pirt of 
these " decoy <lucks, " ami deceived enough Old Line AVhigs and 01 I 
Line Democrats to elect a Black Kepublican Legislature. When 
that IjCgisJature met, the first tiling it did was to elect as Speaker 
of the Hou-.e the very man who is now boasting that he wrote tiie 
Abolition platform on which Lincohi will not stand. T want to 
know of Mr. TunuT whether or not, when he was elected, he was a 
good embodiment of llepul)lican principles? 

Mr. Turner. — 1 lu)pe 1 was then, and am now. 

Mr. Ihtnylns. — lie swears that he hope's he was then, and is 
now. He wrote that Black Republican platform, and is satisfied 
with it now. I admire and acknowledge Turners honesty. Eveiy 
man of you knows that what he says about these resolutions being 
the platform of the Ulack Republican party is true, and you also 
know that each one of these men who are shullling and trying to 
deny it are only trying to cheat the people out of their votes for the 
purpose of deceiving them still more after the election. I propose 
to trace this thing a little further, in order that you can see what 
additional evidence there is to fasten this revolutionary platform 
upon the Black Republican party. When the Legislature assembled, 
there was a United States Senator to elect in the place of General 
Shields, and before they proceeded to ballot, Lovejoy insisted on 
la^'ing down certain principles by which to govern the party. 

It has been published to the world and satisfactorily proven that 
there was, at the lime the aliiaiu-e was niadi- Ix'tweeii Trumbull and 
Lincoln to Aliolit ionize the two parties, an agri'cmeiit that Lincoln 
slujuld take Shieldss place in the United States Senate, and Trum- 
bull should have mine so soon as they could conveniently get rid of 
me. When Lincoln was beaten for Shields's place, in a manner 1 
will refer to in a few minutes, he felt very .sore and restive; his 
friends grunil)led, and some of them came out and charged that the 
mo-.t infamous treachery had been practiced against him; that the 
bargain was that Lincoln was to have hail Shields's place, and Trum- 
bull w;is to have waited for mim-, but that Trumbull, having the 



DOUGLAS. 22 J 

control of u few AboliLiouized Djmocrats, lie prevented tliem from 
voting for Lincoln, tlius keeping him within a few votes of an elec- 
tion until he succeeded in forcing the party to drop him and elect 
Trumbull. Well, Trumbull having cheated Lincoln, his friends 
made a fuss, and in order to keep them and Lincoln quiet, the party 
were obliged to come forward, in advance, at the last State election, 
and make a pledge that they would go for Lincoln and nobody else. 
Lincoln could not be silenced in any other way. 

Now, there are a great many Black Republicans of you who do 
not know tliis thing was done. [Voices: " AVhite, white," and 
great clamor.] I wish to remind 3'ou that while Mr. Lincoln was 
speaking there was not a Democrat vulgar and blackguard enough 
to interrupt him. But I know that the shoe is pinciiing you. I 
am clinching Lincoln now, and you are scared to death for the 
result. I have seen this thing before. I have seen men make ap- 
pointments for joint discussions, and the moment their man has 
been heard, try to interrupt and prevent a fair hearing of the other 
side. I have seen your mobs before, and defy your wrath. [Tre- 
mendous applause.] My friends, do not cheer, for I need my 
whole time. The object of the opposition is to occupy my atten- 
tion in order to prevent me from giving the whole evidence and 
nailing this double dealing on the Black Republican party. 

THE LOVEJOY RESOLUTIONS. 

As I have before said, Lovejoy demanded a declaration of prin- 
ciples on the part of the Black Republicans of the Legislature 
before going into an election for United States Senator. He offered 
the following preamble and resolutions which I hold in my hand : — 

"Whereas, Human slavery is a violation of the principles of natural 
and revealed rights; and whereas the fatliers of tlie Revolution, fully im- 
h\ied with the spirit of these principles, declared freedom to be the inalien- 
;ihle birthright of all men; and whereas the preamble to the Constitution 
of the United States avers that that instrument was ordained to establisli 
justice, and .secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity; 
and whereas, in furtherance of the above principle.s, slavery was forever 
prohibited in the old Northwest Territor}', and more recently in all that 
Territory lying west and north of the State of Missouri, by the Act of the 
Federal Government; and whereas the repeal of the prohibition last re- 
ferred to was contrary to the wishes of the people of Illinois, a violation of 
;tn implied compact long deemed sacred by the citizens of the United 
States, and a wid;' departure from the uniform action of the General 
Government in nLition to the extension of slavery; therefore, 

15 



22C. FREEPORT DEBATE. AUGUST 27. 1858. 

" Ii(*olr(d, by the Iloune vf Iitpri«iuttttirt«, tfte Striate concurring therein, 
Tluit our Si'imtors in Coiif^rt'ss bi- inslrucU'd, aiul our Ucprcsciilalivcs 
rf«iut'sli'il to inlroUuci'. if iioi olherwist' inlrodiicrd. and to vote for, a bill 
lo ri'.st«»ro such proliibitiou to the aforesaid Territories, and also to extend 
u similar prohibition to all territory which now belonjrs to the United 
States, or which may hereafter come under their jurisdiction. 

*' if«jiu/rt«/. That our Senators in Conpress be instructed, and our Rep- 
resentatives retpiested, to vote affainst the admission of any State into the 
Union, the Constitution of which does not prohibit slavery, whether the 
Territory out of which sucli State may have been formed shall have been 
ae(|uired by conquest, treaty, jmrchase, or from original Territory of the 
United States. 

" Bmolrcd, That our Senators in Congress be instructed, and i>ur liepro- 
sentatives requested, to introduce and vole for, a bill to repeal an Act en- 
titled 'an Act respecting fugitives from justice and persons esca|)iiii,' from 
the service of their masters; ' and. failing in tiiat, for such a modification of 
it as shall secure the right of habeas corpun and trial by jury before liie 
regularly constituted authorities of the State, to all persons claimed as 
owing service or labor." 

Those ri'-solutions wefe introduced l»y Mr. Lovejoy inimediutely 
preceding the election of Senator. The}' declared, first, tluit the 
Wiiinot Proviso must be applied to all territory north of 36 deg. 
.■>() min. Secondly, that it must be applied to all territory south of 
M deg. 30 min. Thirdly, that it nui.st be applied to all the terri- 
tory now owned by the United States; and finally, that it must bo 
api)lied to all territory hereafter to be acquired by the United States. 
The next resolution declares that no more Slave States shall be 
aihnittfd into this Union under any ciri-nmstances whatever, no mat- 
ter whether tht-y are formed out of territory now owned by us or 
that we may ln'reafter acciuire, by treaty, by Congress, or in any 
manner whatever. The next resolution demands the niicondilional 
repeal of the Fugitive-Slave law, althougli its unconditional repeal 
would leave no provision for carrying out that clause of the 
Constitution <jf the United States which guarantet's the surrender of 
fugitives. If they could not get an unconditional repeal, they de- 
man<le(l that tliat law should he s(j modilieil as to make it as nearly 
useless as p<jssilile. 

Now, 1 want lo show you wiio voltil for these resolutions. 
When the vote was taken on the first resolution it was ili'cided in 
the alllrmative, — yeas, 11, nays 32. You will find that this is a 
Hlriet party vote, between tiie Di'mocrats on the one hand, and the 
IJIack Kepulilicans on tlie other. [Cries of "White, white," and 
clamor. J I kncnv your name and always call things by their right 
iiame. The point i wi.>,h to call your attention to is this; that these 



DOUGLAS. - 227 

resolutions were adopted on the 7th day of February, and that on the 
8th they went into an election for a United States Senator, and that 
day every man who voted for these resolutions, with but two excep- 
tions, voted for Lincoln for the United States Senate. [Voices: 
" Give us their names. "] I will read the names over to you if you 
want them, but I believe your object is to occupy my time. 

On the next resolution the vote stood — yeas 33, naj's 40; and 
on the third resolution, — yeas 35, nays 47. I wish to impress it 
upon you that every man who voted for those resolutions, with but 
two exceptions, voted on the next day for Lincoln for United States 
Senator. Bear in mind that the members who thus voted for 
Lincoln were elected to the Legislature pledged to vote for no man 
for olTlce under the State or Federal Government who was not com- 
mitled to this Llack Eepublican platform. They were all so 
pledged. Mr. Turner, who stands by me, and who then repre- 
sented you, and who says that he wrote those resolutions, voted for 
Lincoln, when he was pledged not to do so unless Lincoln was 
in favor of those resolutions. I now ask Mr. Turner [turning to 
Mr. Turner], did you violate your pledge in voting for Mr. Lincoln, 
or did he commit himself to j'our platform before you cast your vote 
for him? 

I could go through the whole list of names here, and show you 
that all the Black Republicans in the Legislature, who voted for 
Mr. Lincoln, had voted on the day previous for these resolutions. 
For instance, here are the names of Sargent, and Little, of Jo 
Daviess and Carroll ; Thomas J. Turner, of Stephenson ; Lawrence, of 
Boone and Mc Henry ; Swan, of Lake ; Pinckuey, of Ogle County ; and 
Lyman, of Winnebago. Thus you see everj' member from your Con- 
gressional District voted for Mr. Lincoln, and they were pledged 
not to vote for him unless he was committed to the doctrine of no 
more Slave States, the prohibition of slavery in the Territories, and 
the repeal of the Fugitive-Slave law. Mr. Lincoln tells you to-day 
that he is not pledged to any such doctrine. Either Mr. Lincoln 
was then committed to these propositions, or Mr. Turner violated 
his pledges to you when he voted for him. Either Lincoln was 
pledged to each one of those propositions, or else every Black Re- 
publican Representative from this Congressional District violated 
his pledge of honor to his constituents by voting for him. 

I ask you which horn of the dilemma will you take? Will you 
hold Lincoln up to the plati'orm of his party, or will you accuse 
every Representative you had in the Legislature of violating his 



228 rUElCPORT DEBATE. AUGUST 27, 1858. 

pledjif (if honor to his constitiU'iits? Tht-re is no escape for you. 
Kither Mr. Lincohi was eoiiimitted to those propositions', or your 
uieniliers viohited llieir faith. Take either horn of the dileninia 
yon ehoose. There is no (lo(ly;ing the question; I w:.iit Lineolns 
answer. He says lie was not pledj^M-d to repeal the I-'ujiitive -Slave 
law, that he dois not tjuite like to do it; he will not introduce a 
law to repeal it, l)Ut thinks tin r*' oujjlil to lie some law. he does 
not tell what it oujiht to be; upon the whole he is altoi^ether un- 
deeided, and dont know wliat to tiiink or do. Tluit is the sui)- 
8tane«' of his answer upon the repeal of the Fugitive -Slave law. 1 
put the question* to him distinctly, whether he indorsed that part 
of the Hlack Kepul)lican platform which calls for the entire abro- 
gation and repeal of the Fugitive-Slave law. lie answers. No! that 
he does not indorse that ; but he does not tell what he is for, or 
what he Avill vote for. His answer is, in fact, no answ-er at all. 
Why cannot he sj)eak out, and say what he is for, and what he 
will do? 

In regard to there being no more Slave States, lie is not pledged 
to that. He would not like, he says, to be put in a position where 
he would have to vote one way or another upon that (jucstion. 1 
pra}' you. do not i»ut liini in a position that would embarrass hira so 
raucli. (ieiitlenieii, if he goes to the Senate, he may be jiut in 
that position, and then which way will he vote? 

.1 ]'inir. — How will you vote ? 

Mr. Dnughis. — I will vote for the admission of just such a ."^tate 
as by the form of their constitution the people show they want: if 
they want slavi-ry, they shall have it; if they prohibit slavery, it 
shall be proliiinted. They can form their institutions to please 
themselves, subject only to the Constitution; and 1, for one, stand 
ready to receive them into the Union. Why cannot your Hlack Re- 
publican candidates talk out as ])lain as that when they are ques- 
tioned? 

1 do not want to che.il an\ man (»iil of his vote. No man is de- 
ceived in regard to my principles if I have the jxtwer to express my- 
self in terms explicit enough to convey my ideas. 

Mr. Ijincoln made a si)»'ech when lie was nominated for the 
United Stales Senate which covers all these Abolition platforms. 
He there l.iys down a proposition so broad in its Abolitionism as to 
cover the whole ground. 

"Ill rn> (ipiiiiun il [th<- sliivrry jiKiiation] will not ctasc nntil a rri.sis 
bhull have bt-eii P-aclH-d ami {la.ssi'd. ' A house divided against itscir cua- 



DOUGLAS. 229 

not stnnd/ I believe this Governmcril cannot cnilure p(M-manently, half 
Slave and half Free. I do not expect the house to fall, but 1 do expect it 
will cease to be divided. It will beconne all one thing or all the other. 
Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and 
place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the 
course of ultimate extinction, or its advocafces will ])ush it forward till it 
shall become aliki' lawful in all the States, — old as well as new, North as 
well as South. " 

There you find that Mr. Lincoln laj-s down the doctrine that this 
Union cannot endure divided as our fathers made it, witli Free and 
Slave States. He says they must all become one thing, or all the 
other; that they must all be Free or all Slave, or else the Union can- 
not continue to exist; it being his opinion that to admit any more 
Slave States, to continue to divide the Union into Free and Slave 
States will dissolve it. I want to know of Mr. Lincoln whether he 
will vote for the admission of another Slave State. 

He tells you the Union cannot exist unless the States are all Free 
or all Slave; he tells you that he is opposed to making them all 
Slave, and hence he is for making them all Free, in order that the 
Union may exist; and yet he will not vote against another Slave 
State, knowing that the Union must be dissolved if he votes for it. 
I ask you if that is fair dealing? The true intent and inevitable con- 
clusion to be drawn from his first Springfield speech is, that he is 
opposed to the admission of any more Slave States under any circum- 
stances. If he is so opposed, why not say so? If he believes this 
Union cannot endure divided into Free and Slave States, that they 
must all become free in order to save the Union, he is bound as an 
honest man to vote against any more Slave States. If he believes 
it, he is bound to do it. Show me that it is my duty, in order to 
save the Union, to do a particular act, and I will do it if the Con- 
stitution does not prohil)it it. I am not for the dissolution of the 
Union under any circumstances. I will pursue no course of conduct 
that will give just cause for the dissolution of the Union. The hope 
of the friends of freedom throughout the world rests upon the 
perpetuity of this Union. The down-trodden and oppressed people 
who are suffering under European despotism all look wiuh hope 
and anxiety to the American Union as the only resting place and 
permanent home of freedom and self-government. 

Mr. Lincoln says that he believes that this Union cannot coulimie to 
endure with SlaA-e States in it, and yet he will not lell you distinctly 
whether he will vote for or against the admission of any more Slave 
States, but says he would not like to be put to the test. I do not 



L'iJO FKKKPORT Dlil.ATK, AUGUST 27. lH.-)8. 

think III' will ho put to tin- test. I ilo not think that llu' lu-ojile of 
Illinois ilfsiiv a man to ri'iiri'Sfut tlu'in wlio would not likr to liu put 
to till' t«'st on the perfonnance of a high c'onstituti<»nal duty. 1 will 
rctiiv in shanu- frouj the Siiiatf of tla* I'nitrd States wlu-n 1 am not 
willin}^ to be put to the test in the performance of my duty. I have 
\n-vn put to st'vci-e tests. 1 iiave stood l»y m}' principles in fair 
weather and in foul, in the sunshine and in the rain. I have cU'- 
fended the great principles of self-government here among you 
when Nortliern sentiment ran in a torrent against me, and I have 
defended that same great primiple when Southern sentiment came 
down like an avalanche upon me. 1 was not afraid of any test they 
put to me. I knew I was right; T knew my principles were sound; 
I knew that tlie peopK- would see in tht' end tli.il I hail tlone right, 
and I knew that the (iod of heavi'n v,-ould smile upon me if 1 was 
faithful in the performtmce of my duty. 

ANSWKR Til IIIK " rONSl'IR.\(V ' ril.VKOE. 

Mr. Lincohi makes a charge of corruption against the Su- 
preme Court of the United States, and two Presidents of the 
United States, and attempts to bolster it up by saying that I did the 
same against the Washington Viildii. Suppose I did make that 
charge of corruption against liie Washington lliinn, when it was 
true, does that justify him in making a false charge against me 
and others? That is the (piestion 1 would put. lie says that at the 
time the Nebraska bill was introduced, and liefore it was passed, 
there was a conspiracy between the Judges of the Supreme Court, 
President Pierce, President Huchaiian, and myself, liy that bill and 
the decision <»f the court, to bri-ak down the barrier and establish 
slavery all over the Union. 

Does he not know that that charge is historically false as 
again.st President Huchanan? He knows that Mr. Ibichanaii was 
at that time in Kngland, representing this country with dis- 
tinguished ability at the Court of St. .James, that he was there 
for a long time before, and ilid not return for a year <ir inon' 
after. He knows that to Ik- true, and that fact proves his charge 
to !)(• false as against Mr. Ibichanan. Then, again, 1 wish to call 
his attention to the fact that at the time the Neliraska l)ill was 
passed, the I)re<l Scott case was not befi»re the Supreme Court at 
all; it was not upon the docket of tlu' Supreme Court; it ha«l not 
been brought there; and the .Judges in all prolialiility knew nothing 



DOUGLAS. 2S1 

of it. Thus the history of the country proves the charge to be false 
as against them. 

As to President Pierce, his high character as a man of integrity 
and honor is enough to vindicate him from such a charge; and as to 
myself, I pronounce the charge an infamous lie, whenever and 
wherever made, and by whomsoever made. I am willing that Mr. 
Lincoln should go and rake up every public act of mine, every 
measure I have introduced, report I have made, speech delivered, 
and criticise them; but when he charges upon me a corrupt con- 
spiracy for the purpose of perverting the institutions of the country, 
I brand it as it deserves. I say the history of the country proves 
it to be false; and that it could not have been possible at the time. 

But now he tries to protect himself in this charge, because I 
made a charge against the Washington Union. My speech in the 
Senate against the Washington Union was made because it advo- 
cated a revolutionarv doctrine, by declaring that the Free States 
had not the right to prohibit slavery within their own limits. Be- 
cause I made that charge against the Washington Union, Mr. Lin- 
coln says it was a charge against Mr. Buchanan. Suppose it was: 
is Mr Lincoln the peculiar defender of Mr. Buchanan? Is he so 
interested in the Federal Administration, and so bound to it that he 
must jump to the rescue and defend it from every attack that I may 
make against it? I understand the whole thing. The Washington 
Union, under that most corrupt of all men, Cornelius Wendell, is ad- 
vocating Mr. Lincoln's claim to the Senate. Wendell was the printer 
of the last Black Republican House of Representatives; he was 
a candidate before the present Democratic House, but was ignomin- 
ioush' kicked out; and then he took the money which he had made 
out of the public printing by means of the Black Republicans, 
bought the Washington Union, and is now publishing it in the 
name of the Democratic party, and advocating Mr. Lincoln's elec- 
tion to the Senat€. Mr. Lincoln therefore considers an attack upon 
Wendell and his corrupt gang as a personal attack upon him. This 
only proves what I have charged, — that there is an alliance between 
Lincoln and his supporters, and the Federal office-holders of this 
State, and Presidential aspirants out of it, to break me down at 
home 

Mr Lincoln feels bound to come in to the rescue of the Wash- 
ington Union. In that speech which I delivered in answer to the 
Washington Union, I made it distinctly against the Union, and 
against the Union alone. I did not choose to go bej'ond that. If I 



232 FREKPOIIT DKHATK. Al'OrST 27. I&IS. 

h:ivf occasion lo atUicK l!it' President's t-inulmt. I will do it in 
langnajje that will not be misunderstood. Wiun 1 ditrered witli the 
President, I spoke out so bli:it you all heard me. That tiuestion 
passed away; it ri'sultetl in the triiunph of my principle, by allow- 
ing the people to do as they please; and there is an end of the 
controversy. Whenever the great principle of self-government, — 
the right of the people to make their own Constitution, and come 
into the I'nion with slavery or without it. a.s they see proper, — 
shall again arise, you will lind me standing firm in the defense of 
that principle, and fighting whoever fights it. If Mr. Huchanan 
stands, as I il()ul)t not he will, by the recommendation c<mtained in 
his Message, that hereafter all State constitutions ought to be sub- 
mitted to the people before the admission of the State into the 
T'nion, he will find me standing by him firmly, shoulder to shoulder, 
in carrying it out. I know Mr. Lincoln's object: he wants to di- 
vide the Democratic party, in order that he may defeat me and get 
to the Senate. 

Mr. Douglass time here expired, and he stopped on the moment. 



MK. LINCOLN'S KK.IOIXDER. 

My Frien'DS : It will readily occur to you that I cannot, in 
half an hour, notice all the things that so able a man as Judge 
Douglas can say in an hour and a half ; and I hope, therefore, if 
there l>e anything that he has said upon which you would like to 
hear something from me, but which I omit to comment upon, you 
will bear in mind that it would be expecting an impossibilit}' for me 
to go (»ver his whole ground. I can but take up some of the points 
that he has dwelt upon, and employ my half-lioiir specially on them. 

The first thing 1 have to say to 3'ou is a word in regard to Judge 
Douglas's (h'claration about the '' vulgarity and blackguardism'' in 
the audience, — that no such thing, as he says, was shown by any 
Democrat while I was speaking. Now, 1 only wisli. by way of reply 
on this subject, to say that while /was speakiiiir, / used no "vul- 
garity or blackguardism" toward any Democrat. 

Now. my friends, I come to all this long portion of the Judge's 
speech. — perhaps half <)f it, — which he has devobMl to the various 
resolutions and platforms that have been adopted in tlie dilferent 
counties in the ditferent Congressional Histricts, and in the Illinois 



LINCOLN. 233 

Legislature, whicli be supposes are at variance with the positions I 
luive assumed before you to-day. It is true tbat many of tbese 
resolutions are at variance with the positions I have here assumed. 
AH I have to ask is that we talk reasonably and rationally al)out it. 
I happen to know, the Judge's opinion to the contrary notwithstand- 
ing, that 1 have never tried to conceal my opinions, nor tried to de- 
ceive any one in reference to them, rie may go and examine all 
the members who voted for me for United States Senator in 1855, 
after the election of 1854. They were pledged to certain things 
here at home, and were determined to have pledges from me ; and 
if he will find any of these persons who will tell him anything in- 
consistent with what I say now, I will resign, or rather n^tire from 
the race, and give him no more trouble. 

THOSE "resolutions" NOT THE PLATFORM. 

The plain truth is this : At the introduction of the Nebraska 
polic}', we believed there was a new era being introduced in the' 
histor}' of the Republic, which tended to the spread and perpetua- 
tion of slavery. But in our opposition to that measure we did not 
agree with one another in everything. The people in the north end 
of the State were for stronger measures of opposition than we of 
the central and southern portions of the State, but we were all 
opposed to the Nebraska doctrine. We had that one feeling and 
that one sentiment in common. You at the north end met in your 
Conventions and passed your resolutions. We in the middle of the 
State and further south did not hold such Conventions and pass the 
same resolutions, although we had in general a common view and a 
common sentiment. So that these meetings which the Judge has 
alluded to, and the resolutions he has read from, were local, and 
did not spread over the whole State. We at last met together in 
1856, from all parts of the State, and we agreed upon a common 
platform. You, who held more extreme notions, either yielded 
those notions, or, if not wholly yielding them, agreed to yield them 
practically, for the sake of embodying the opposition to the 
measures which the opposite party were pushing forward at that 
time. We met you then, and if there was anything yielded, it was 
for practical purposes. We agreed then upon a platform for the 
party throughout the entire State of Illinois, and now we are all 
bound, as a party, fo fJiaf plaffonn. And I say here to you, if any 
one expects of me — in the case of m}' election — that I will do 



•_>:54 rUEEPOllT DKHATE. AUGUST 27, 1858. 

aiivtliing not signilUnl by our lU'i)iiblicau platform nm\ my answers 
here to-day, 1 tell you very frankly that person will be deceived. 

I do not ask for the vote of any one who supposes that I have 
secret purposes or pledj^es that I dare not speak out. Cannot the 
•lutl'ze be satislled? If he fears, in the unfortunate case of my 
elertion, that my goinj; to Washington will enalde me to advocate 
sentiments contrary to those which 1 expressed wiicii yow voted for 
and I'lecled me, I assure him that his fears are wholly neeiUess and 
groundless. Is the .luilge really afraid of any such thing? I'll 
tfll von what he is afiaid of. /A is n/'i'iii/ iri 11 nil j, nil ti/i/i f/nr. 
This is what alarms him nu>H' than anything else. For my part, I 
tlo hope that all of us, entertaining a common sentiment in opposi- 
tion to what appears to us a design to nationalize and perpetuate 
slavery, will waive minor diU'ercnces on (juestions which either l)elong 
to the dead past or the distant future, and all pull together in this 
struggle. What are your sentiments ? If it be true that on the 
ground which I occiipy, — ground which I occupy as frankly and 
boldly as Judge Douglas does his, — my views, though partly coin- 
ciding with yours, are not as perfectly in accordance with your 
feelings as his an-, 1 do say to you in all candor, go for him, and 
not for m«'. I iiope to deal in all things fairly with Judge Douglas, 
and with the people of the State, in this contest. And if I shouUl 
never be elected to any ollice, I trust 1 may go down with no stain 
of falsehood upon my reputation, notwithstanding the iiard opinions 
Judge Douglas chooses to entertain of me. 

The Judge has again addressed himself to the Abolition Icn- 
denci«'s of a speech of mine made at Springfield in June last. I 
have so often tried to answer what he is always saying on that 
raelanclioly theme that I almost turn with disgust from the discus- 
sion, — from the repetition of an answer to it. I trust that nearly 
all of this intt'lligent audience have read that speech. If you have, 
I may vt-nture to leave it l<> you to inspect it ciostly, and see whether 
it contains any of those " bug.aboos" whieh fright«'n .ludge Douglas. 

The .ludge complains that I ditl n(»t fully answer his (pii'stions. 
If 1 have the sense to compri'hend and answi-r those (piestions, [ 
have done so fairly. If it can l>e p<tiute<i out to me how 1 can more 
fidly and fairly answer him. I will do it ; but I aver 1 have not the 
sense to see how it is to bi- done. He says I do not declare I 
would in any event vote for the admission of a Slave Stat*- into the 
I'nion. If I have been fairly reported, he will see that 1 did give 
an i-xplieil answer to his interrogatories. I did not merely say that 



LINCOLN. 235 

r would dislike to be put to the test, but I said clearly, if I were 
put to the test, and a Territory from which slavery had been ex- 
cluded should present herself with a State constitution sanctioning 
slavery, — a most extraordinary thing, and wholly unlikelj^ to hap- 
pen, — I did not see howl could avoid voting for her admissiou. 
IJut he refuses to understand that I said so, and he wants this 
audience to understand that I did not say so. Yet it will be so 
reported in the printed speech that he cannot help seeing it. 

He saj's if I should vote for the admission of a Slave State I 
would be voting for a dissolution of the Union, because I hold that 
the Union cannot permanently exist half Slave and half Free. I 
repeat that I do not believe this Government c«m endure permanently 
half Slave and half Free; yet I do not admit, nor does it at all follow, 
that the admission of a single Slave State will permanently (ix the 
character and establish this as a universal slave nation. The Judge 
is very happy indeed at working up these quibbles. Before leaving 
the subject of answering (piestions, I aver as my confident belief, 
when you come to see our speeches in print, that you will find every 
question which he has asked me more fairly and boldly and fully 
answered than he has answered those which I put to him. Is not 
that so? The two speeches may be placed side by side, and I will 
venture to leave it to impartial judges whether his questions have 
not been more directly and circumstantially answered than mine. 

THAT "FATAL BLOW."' 

Judge Douglas says he made a charge upon the editor of the 
Washington Union, alone, of entertaining a purpose to rob the States 
of their power to exclude slavery from their limits. I undertake to 
say, and I make the direct issue, that he did not make his charge 
against the editor of the Union alone. I will undertake to prove by 
the record here that he made that charge against more and higher 
dignitaries than the editor of the Washington Union. I am quite 
aware that he was shirking and dodging around the form in which 
he put it, but I can make it manifest that he levelled his "fatal 
blow" against more persons than this Washington editor. Will he 
dodge it now b}' alleging that I am trying to defend Mr. Buchanan 
against the charge? Not at all. Am I not making the same charge 
myself? I am trying to show that you. Judge Douglas, are a wit- 
ness on my side. I am not defending Buchanan, and I will tell 
Judge Douglas that in my opinion, when he made that charge, he 
had an eye farther north than he was to-day. He was then fighting 



2:^6 FREF:r()RT DEBATE. AUGUST 27, lftr>8. 

ii«;jaiiist jK'opli- wlir) ralk'il /////( a IdacU Republican ami an Abolilion- 
ist. It is niixi'l all tlirmigh his spt'ci-li. ami it is tolerably manifest 
that his fve was a j^n-at dtal farther nurth than it is to-day. The 
.Ju l^e sa^'s that though he made this eharj^e, To«jmbs jrot up and 
deelared there was not a man in the United States, oxiept the editor 
of the /'/(/.),/, who was in favor of the doctrines put forth in that arti- 
cle. And thereupon I understand that the Judge withdrew the 
charge. Altliough he had taken extracts from tiie newspaper, and 
then from the Lecomptou Constitution, to show the existence of a 
conspiracy to bring about a " fatal blow,' by which the States were 
to be deprived of the right of excluding slavery, it all went to pot 
as soon as Tooml)s got up and t<jld liim it was not true. 

it reminds me of the story tiiat John riio'nix, the California 
railroad surveyor, tells. lie says they started out from the I'laza to 
the Mission of Dolores. They had two ways of determining ilis- 
Uinces. One was by a chain and pins taken over the grountl. The 
other was by a "go-it-ometer," — an invention of his own, — a 
three-legged instrument, with which* he computed a series of tri- 
angles between the points. At night he turned to the chain-man to 
ascertain what ilistance they had come, and found that by .some 
mistake he had merely dragged the chain over the ground, without 
keeping any record. By the "go-it-ometer" he found he had made 
ten miles. Hi-ing sceptical about this, he asked a drayman who 
was passing how far it was to the Flaza. The drayman replied it 
was just half a mile; and the surveyor put it down in his book, — 
just as Judge Douglas says, after he had made his calculations and 
computations, he took Toombs's statement. I have no doubt that after 
Judge Douglas had made his charge, he was as easil}' satisfied about 
its truth as the surveyor was of the drayman's statement of the dis- 
tance to the Plaza. Vet it is a fact that the man who put forth all 
that matter which Douglas deemed a '• fatal i)low " at State sover- 
eignty, was elected by the Democrats as public printer. 

Now, gentlemen, you may take Judge Douglass speech of March 
2lid, IH.'jK, beginning about llie middle of page 2L and reading to 
the bottom of page 24, ami you uiil linil the evidence on which I 
say that he did not make iiis c-harge against the editor of the l^in'on 
alone. I cannot stop to read it, but 1 will give it to the reporters. 
Judge Douglas saiil: - 

" Mr. Pn'sidcijt, you ln-re Hnil sovoral distinct proixwitions jidvancpd 
I) >ldly by tin- Wiistiinirtnii l'/iii>n ('ditorialiy. aiitl ii\)\r.irrt\i]\ inif/i'>rit<itirilf/. 
Old I'vcn mail wlio (|ui'sii»)iis any of tlii-rn is <lcn(»uncfd a.s an Abolilioaist, 



LINCOLN. 237 

a Frce-soiler, a fanatic. The propositions are, first, that the primary ob- 
ject of all government at its ori<?inal institution is the protection of persons 
and property; second, that tlie Constitution of tlie United States declares 
that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and 
immunities of citizens in the several States; and that, therefore, thirdl^^ 
all State laws, whether organic or otherwise, which prohibit the citizens 
of one State from settling in another with their slave property, and es- 
pecially declaring it forfeited, are direct violations of the original inten- 
1 ion of the Government and Constitution of the United States ; and, fourth, 
tiiat the emancipation of the slaves of the Northern States was a gross out- 
rage on the rights of property, inasmuch as it was involuntarily done on 
the part of the owner. 

"Remember that this article was published in the Union on the 17th of 
November, and on the 18th appeared the first article, giving the adhesion 
of the Union to the Lecompton Constitution. It was in these words : — 

"'Kansas and her Constitution. — The vexed question is settled. 
The probl(>m is solved. The dead point of danger is passed. All serious 
trouble to Kansas alTairs is over and gone — ' 

"And a column, nearly, of the same sort. Then, when you come to 
look into the Lecompton Constitution, you find the same doctrine incor- 
porated in it which was put forth editorially in the Union. "What is it? 

"'Article 7, Section 1. The right of property is before and higher 
than any constitutional sanction ; and the right of the owner of a slave to 
such slave and its increase is the same and as invariable as the right of 
the owner of any property whatever.' 

"Then in the schedule is a provision that the Constitution may be 
amended after 18C4 by a two-thirds vote. 

" ' But no alteration shall be made to affect the right of property in the 
ownership of slaves.' 

"It will be seen by these clauses in the Lecompton Constitution that 
they are identical in spirit with this authoritative article in the Washing- 
ton Union of the day previous to its indorsement of this Constitution. 

"When I saw that article in the Union of the 17th of November, fol- 
lowed by the glorification of the Lecompton Constitution on the 18th of 
November, and this clause in the Constitution asserting the doctrine that 
a State has no right to prohibit slavery within its limits, I saw that there 
was a fatal blow being struck at the sovereignty of the States of the 
Union." 

Here he says, "Mr. President, you here find several distinct 
propositions advanced boldly, and apparently author itativdy." By 
whose authority, Judge Douglas? Again, he says in another place, 
' ' It will be seen by these clauses in the Lecompton Constitution 
that they are identical in spirit with this (luthoritatU-e article." By 
irlidsc authority? Who do you mean to say authorized the publica- 
tion of these articles? He knows that the Washington Union is 
considered the organ of the Administration. / demand of Judge 
Douglas by whose authority he meant to say those arLieics were nub- 



'Sis FUKl-Jl'OllT DKIJATK. ATCiUST 27. j858. 

lislK'a, It nui i»y tlif authority of the Presitleiit ot iiie United States 
and bis Cabiiu'l? I dety him to show whom he referred to, if not 
to thi'se hi<ih functiouaries in the Federal Government. More than 
this, ho says tiie articles in that pajier and the provisions of the 
Leeompton Constitution are "identical," and, Itein^ identical, he 
argues that the authoi-s are co-operating and conspiring together. 
He does not use the word "conspiring," but what other construction 
can you put upon it? He winds up willi this: — 

"Whi'ii I saw that arliclf in the Union of tin- 17th of November, fol- 
lowed by tl»e <rloritlcatioii of tlie Lecoin|)t(»n Coii-stitulion on the 18th of 
NovfiiilMT. ami tills chiuse in the Constitution assertinif the doctrint; that 
a Statf has no ri^^ht to prohibit shivery witliin its iimits. I saw that there 
was a ftital blow being struck at the sovereignty of the States of this 
T'nion." 

I ask hiui if all this fuss was made over the editor of this news- 
l»ap(r. It would lie a terriMy ^•/atnl itiow "' indeed which a single 
man could striki-, when no I'lcsident, no Cabinet olliccr, no member 
of Congress, was giving strength antl elliciency to the njovement. 
Out of respoct to Judge Douglas's good sense I must believe he did 
not manufacture his idea of the " fatal " character of that blow out of 
such a miserable scapegrace as he represents that editor U) \iv. Hut 
the Judges eye is farther south now. Then, it was very i)eculiarly 
and decidedly north. His hope resteil on the idea of enlisting the 
great " Black Republican" party, and making it the tail of his new 
kite. He knows he was then expecting from day to day to turn 
Kepublicaii, and i)lace himself at the head of onv organization. He 
has found that these despised •• Black Hcpuljlicans " estimate him 
by a standard which be has taught them only too well. Hence he is 
crawling bac k into his old camj), and you will find him eventually 
installed in full fi'llowship among those whom he was then battling, 
and with whom he now pretends to be at such fearfid variance, 
[lioud applause, ami eiies of ''(jo on, go on.'"] 1 cannot, gentle- 
men, my time has expired. 



THIRD JOINT DEBATE, AT JONESBORO. 

September 15, 1S5S. 
MK. DOUGLAS'S SPEECH. 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 1 appear before 30U to-day in pursu- 
ance of a previous notice, and have made arrangements with Mr. 
Lincoln to divide time, and discuss witli him the leading political 
topics that now agitate the country. 

Prior to 1854 this country was divided into two great political 
parties known as Whig and Democratic. Tiiese parties ditTered 
from each other on certain questions which were then deemed to be 
important to the best interests of the Republic. Whigs and- Demo- 
crats differed about a bank, the tariff, distribution, the specie circu- 
lar, and the sub-treasury. On those issues we went before the 
country and discussed the principles, objects, and measures of the 
two great parties. Each of the parties could proclaim its princi- 
ples in Louisiana as well as in Massachusetts, in Kentucky as well 
as in Illinois. Since that period, a great revolution has taken place 
in the formation of parties, by which they now seem to be divided 
by a geographical line, a large party in the North being arrayed un- 
der the Abolition or Repul)lican banner, in hostility to the Southern 
States, Southern people, and Southern institutions. It becomes im- 
portant for us to inquire how this transformation of parties has 
occurred, made from those of national principles to geographical 
factions. 

You remember that in 1850 — this country was agitated from it's 
center to its circumference about this slaverj" question — it became 
necessary for the leaders of the great Whig party and the leaders of 
the great Democratic party to postpone, for the time being, their par- 
ticular disputes, and unite first to save the Union befoi'e they should 
quarrel as to the mode in which it was to be governed. During tne 
Congress of 1849-'50, Henry Clay was the leader of the Union men, 
supported by Cass and Webster, and the leaders of the Democracy 
and the leaders of the Whigs, in opposition to Northern Abolition- 
ists or Southern Disunionists. That great contest of 1850 resulted 
in the establishment of the Compromise measures of that 3'ear, 
which measures rested on the great principle that the people of each 

[239] 



240 .loNKslioKo DKISATK. SKPTEMBEU 15. 1858. 

Stati- :m<l i':nli 'rtTrituiv <»f this riiioii oujiht to 1)0 permitted to 
n'j;ul:»tt' tlu'ir f)wii domestic institutions in tlii-ir own way, suliject to 
no otliiT limitation than that wiiich thi- Ffik-ral Constitution im- 
jioses. 

I nt)w wisli to ask you whi'thir that principk' was ri«;ht or wrong 
whii-h {luarantfc'd to i-vi-ry State and every community the right to 
form and re^uhite thi'ir domestic institutions to suit themselves. 
These measures were ado>)ted, as I have previously said, by the 
joint action of tiie I'nion Whij,'s, and Union Demoi-rats in opposition 
to Northern Al)olitionists and Southern Disunionists. In 1852, 
when the Wiiig jjarty assembled, at Baltimore, in National Conven- 
tion for the last time, they adopted the principle of the Compro- 
mise .Measures of ]«')(» as their rule of party action in the future. 
One month then-after the Democrats assembled at tlie same place to 
nominate a c.iudidate for the Presidency, and declared the same 
great principle as the rule of action by which the Democracy would 
be governed. The Presidential cli=<;tion of isr)2 was fought on thai 
basis. It is true tiiat the Whigs claimed special nurit for tiic ad(»i)- 
tion of those measures, because they asserted that their gre.it Clay 
originated them, their god-like Webster defended them, and their 
Fillmore signed the bill miking them tlie law of the land; but, on 
the other hand, the Democrats claimed s|)ecial credit for the 
Democracy, upon the ground that v.e gave twice as many votes in 
both bouses of Congress for the passage of these measures as the 
Whig party. 

I'.MITV KKI,.VTloNSinPS. 

Thus you see tliat in llu' Pre-^ideiilial election of 1S,j2, the 
Whigs were pledged liy their platform ami their candidate to the 
principle of the Compromise Measures of lSj(», and the Dem«K-racy 
were likewise pledged by our i)iinciples, our platform, and our can- 
didate to the same line of policy, to preserve peace and (piiet between 
the ditrerent sections of this Fnion. Since that pi'riod the Whig 
party has been transformcil into a sectional party, under the name of 
the Kepulilican jjarty, whilst the Democratic party continues the 
same national party it was at that day. All sectional men, all men 
of Abolition Kcntiments and principles. n(» matter whether they were 
oI<l Abolitionists or had been Whigs or Democrats, r.ally undi-r the 
(M.'Ction:d Kepul)lie.in banner, and c<»nse(|iiently all National men, 
all Union loving men. whether Wliigs. Democrats, or by whatever 
name the\ have been known, ought to rally under the Stars and 



DOUGLAS. 241 

Stripes in defense of the Constitution as ouv fathers made it, and of 
llie Union as it has existed under the Constitution. 

How has this dei)arture from tlie faitli of the Democracy and 
the faith of the Whig party been accomplished? In 1854, cer- 
tain restless, ambitious, and disappointed politicians throughout 
the land took advantage of the temporar}' excitement created by 
tlie Nebraska bill to try and dissolve the old Whig party, and the 
old Democratic pai'ty, to Abolitionize their members, and lead 
them, bound hand and foot, captives into the Abolition camp. In 
the State of New York a convention was held by some of these men, 
anil a platform adopted, every plank of which was as black as night, 
each one relating to theyliegro, and not one referring to the interests 
of the white man. That example was followed throughout the 
Northern States, the elTort being made to coml)ine all the Free 
States in hostile array against the Slave States. The men who thus 
thought that they could build up a great sectional party, and 
through its organization control the political destinies of this coun- 
try, based all their hopes on the single fact that the North v/as the 
stronger division of the nation, and hence, if the North could be 
combined against the South, a sure victory awaited their efforts. 

I am doing no more than justice to the truth of histor}' when I 
say that in this State, Abraham Lincoln, on behalf of the Whigs, 
and Lyman Trumbull, on behalf of the Democrats, were the leaders 
who undertook to perform this grand scheme of Abolitionizing the 
two parties to which they belonged. They had a private arrange- 
ment as to what should be the political destiny of each of the 
contracting parties before they went into the operation. The ar- 
rangement was that Mr. Lincoln was to take the Old Line Whigs 
with him, claiming that he was still as good a Whig as ever, over to 
the Abolitionists, and Mr. Trumbull was to run for Congress in the 
Belleville District, and, claiming to be a good Democrat, coax the 
old Democrats into the Abolition camp, and when, by the joint 
efforts of the Abolitionized Whigs, the Abolitionized Democrats, 
and the Old Line Abolition and Free-soil party of this State, they 
should secure a majorit}' in the Legislature. Lincoln was then to 
be made United States Senator in Shields's place, Trumbull remaining 
in Congress until I should be accommodating enough to die or re- 
sign, and give him a chance to follow Lincoln. That was a very 
nice little bargain so far as Lincoln and Truml)ull were concerned, it 
it had been carried out in good faith, and friend Lincoln had at- 
tained to senatorial dignity according to the contract, 
16 



242 .loNKSHoKo DKIiATK. SKPTEMHEIl ir>. ia58. 

Tlu'V went into the contest in every part of the State, calling 
upon all disappointed politic-iiins to i<»in in the crusade against the 
iK-niocrai-y, and appealed to the prevailing sentiments and pre- 
juiliees in all the northern counties of the St:ite, In three Con- 
gressional Districts in the ncnth end of the State they adopted, as 
tlie i)latform of this new party thus formed bj' Lincoln and Trum- 
l»ull in connection with th«' Alxtiitionists, all of those principles 
which ainu'd at a warfare on the part of the North against the 
South. They decland in that platfi)rni that the Wilmot Proviso 
was to be applied to all the Territories of the United States, 
north as well as south of 'M't deg. ."}() niin., and not only to all 
the territory we then had, Itiit all that we might hereafter ac- 
(piire; that hereafter no more Slave States shouUl be admitted into 
this Union, even if the people of such State desired slavery; that the 
Fugitive-Slave law should be absolutely and unc-onditionally repealed; 
that slavery should l)e abolished in the District of Columbia; that 
the slave trade should be abolished between the different States; 
and, in fact, every article in their crei'd related to this slavi-ry (pies- 
tion, and pointed to a Northern geographical party in hostility to 
the Southern States of this Union. 

TIIK lUKlKHKNT I..VTITUDES. 

Such were their principles in Northern Illinois. A little farther 
south they became bleaclied, and grew paler just in |)roportion as 
public sentiment moderated and changed in this direction. They 
were Republicans or Abolitionists in the North, anti-Nebraska men 
down al)out Springfield, and in this neighborhood they contented 
themselves with talking about the inexpediency of the repeal of the 
Missouri .Comi)romise. In the extreme northern counties they 
brought out men to canvass the State whose complexion suited 
their pf)litical creed; and hence Fred Douglass, the negro, was to 
be found there, following Gi-neral Cass, and attempting to speak on 
behalf of liinctdu, TniinltuU, and Al)olitionism, against that illus- 
trious senator. Why. they brought I'nd Douglass to Freeport, 
when I was addn-ssing a meeting there, in a carriage driven by 
the wliite owner, the negro sitting inside with the white lady and 
lier daugliter. Wlu-n I got through canvassing the northern counties 
that year, and progresse«l as far south as Springfield, I was met and 
opposed in discussion by Lincoln, liovejoy, Trumbull and Sidney 
IJreese, who were on one side. Fatlier (liddings, the high-priest of 
AI>olitioni8m, iiad just been there, and Chase came about the time 



DOUGLAS. 243 

I left. [Voice: "Whydidu't j-ou shoot him?"] I did take a 
running shot at them ; but as I was single-handed against the white, 
black, and mixed drove, I had to use a shot-gun and fire into the 
crowd, instead of taking them off singly with a rifle. 

Trumbull had for his lieutenants, in aiding him to Abolitionize 
the Democracy, such men as John Wentworth of Chicago, Governor 
Reynolds, of Belleville, Sidney Breese of Carlisle, and John Dough- 
erty of Union, each of whom modified his opinions to suit the 
locality he was in. Dougherty, for instance, would not go much 
further than to talk about the inexpediency of the Nebraska bill, 
whilst his allies at Chicago advocated negro citizenship and negro 
equality, putting the white man and the negro on the same basis 
under the law. Now, these men, four years ago, were engaged in a 
conspiracy to break down the Democracy; to-day they are again 
acting together for the same purpose ! They do not hoist the same 
flag, they do not own the same principles or profess the same faith, 
but conceal their union for the sake of policy. In the northern 
counties, you find that all the conventions are called in the name of 
the Black Republican party; at Springfield, they dare not call a 
Republican Convention, but invite all the enemies of the Democracy 
to unite; and when they get down into Egypt, Trumbull issues 
notices calling upon the '■'■Free Democracy'" to assemble and hear 
him speak. I have one of the handbills calling a Trumbull meeting 
at Waterloo the other day, which I received there, which is in the 
following language : — 

A meeting of the Free Democracy will take place in Waterloo, on Mon- 
day, Sept. 13th inst., whereat Hon. Lyman Trumbull, Hon. Jehu Baker 
and others will address the people upon the different political topics of 
the day. Members of all parties are cordially invited to be present, and 
hear and determine for themselves. 

The Monroe Free Democracy. 

What is that name of "Free Democrats" put forth for, un- 
less to deceive the people, and make them believe that Trumbull 
and his followers are not the same party as that which raises the 
black flag of Abolitionism in the northern part of this State, and 
makes war upon the Democratic party throughout the State? When 
I put that question to them at Waterloo on Saturday last, one of 
them rose and stated that they had changed their name for political 
efl'ect, in order to get votes. There was a candid admission. Their 
object in changing their party organization and principles in difl'er- 
ent localities was avowed to be an attempt to cheat and deceive 



•JH .Ii»Ni;s|{(»i:n DKHATK. SKI'TKMItEU 1.'). IS-IS. 

BiiiUi- portion i)f till' jn'opU' until afttT the election. \\'liy cannot a 
politiral party that is conscious of llic rectitude of its purposes and 
the sountlness of its principles declare tliem everywhere alike? I 
would disdain to hold any political principles that I could not avow 
in the same terms in Kentucky that I declared in Illinois, in Charles- 
ton as well as in Chicaj^o, in New Orleans as well as in New York. 
So long us we live under a Constitution common to all the iStutes, 
i>ur political faith ou«:ht to he as broad, as lil)eral, and just as 
that Constitution itself, and should be proclaimed alike in every 
l)ortion of the Union. 

Hut it is apparent that our opponents find it necessary, for par- 
tisan etrect. to change their colors in dilferent counties in order to 
catch the popular breeze, and hope with these discordant materials 
comi»ined tofjether to secure a majority in the Legislature for the 
purpose of putting down the Democratic parly. This combination 
did succei'd in isr»4 so far as to elect a majority of their confeder- 
ates to the Legislature; and the first important act whicli they per- 
formed was to elect a Senator in the place of the eminent and 
gallant Senator Shields. Ilis term expired in the United States 
Senate at that time, and he had to be crushed by the Abolition 
coalition for the simple reason that he would not join in their con- 
spiracy to wage war against one-half of the Union. That was the 
only objection to General Shields. He had served the people of the 
State with ability in the Legislature, he had served you with fidelity 
anil ability as Auditor, he had performed his duties to the satisfac- 
tion of the whole country at the head of the Land Department at 
Washington, he had covered the State and the Union with immortal 
L'lory on the bloody fields of Mexico in defense of the honor of our 
tiag. and yet he had to be stricken down by this uidioly combina- 
tion. And for what cause? Merely bec;iuse he would not join a 
<-ombination of one half of the States to make war upon t!ie other 
half, after having poured out his hearts blood for all the States in 
the Union. Trumltull was put in his place by Abolitionism. 

TH.VT " H.VUd.MN " .\(i.MN. 

How did Triiinbull get there? Hefore the Abolitionists would 
con.sent to go into an election for United States Senator they re- 
(juired all the members of this m-w comliination to show their hands 
U|M)n this question <<f .\bolitioiiisin. bovejoy. one of their high- 
priestH, brought in resolutions delining the Al)olition i-ri-ed, and 



DOUGLAS. 2-15 

required them to commit themselves on it by their votes, — yea or 
nay. In that creed, as laid down by Lovejoy, they declared, first, 
that the "Wilmot Proviso must be put on all the Territories of the 
United States, north as well as south of 36 deg. 30. , and that no 
more territory should ever be acquired unless slavery was at first 
prohibited therein; second, that no more States should ever be re- 
ceived into the Union unless slavery was first proliiluted, by Con- 
stitutional provision, in such States; third, that the Fugitive -Slave 
law must be immediately repealed, or, failing in that, then such 
amendments were to be made to it as would render it useless and 
inefficient for the objects for which it was passed, etc. The next 
da)^ after these resolutions were offered they were voted upon, part 
of them carried, and the others defeated, the same men w^ho voted 
for them, with only two exceptions, voting soon after for Abraham 
Lincoln as their candidate for the United States Senate. He came 
within one or two votes of being elected, but he could not quite get 
the number required, for the simple reason that his friend Trumbull, 
who was a party to the bargain by which Lincoln was to take 
Shields's place, controlled a few Abolitionized Democrats in the 
Legislature, and would not allow them all to vote for him, thus 
wronging Lincoln by permitting him on each ballot to be almost 
elected, but not quite, until he forced them to drop Lincoln and 
elect him (Trumbull), in order to unite the party. 

Thus 3-ou find that although the Legislature was carried that 
3'ear by the bargain between Trumbull, Lincoln, and the Abolition- 
ists, and the union of these discordant elements in one harmonious 
party, ^et Trumbull violated his pledge, and played a Yankee trick 
on Lincoln when the}' came to divide the spoils. Perhaps you would 
like a little evidence ou this point. If 3'ou would, I will call 
Colonel James H. Matheny, of Springfield, to the stand, 3Ir. Lin- 
colns especial confidential friend for the last twentj^ years, and see 
what he will sa}' upon the subject of this bargain. Mathenj' is now 
the Black Republican, or Abolition, candidate for Congress in the 
Springfield District against the gallant Colonel Harris, and is mak- 
ing speeches all over that part of the State against me and in favor 
of Lincoln, in concert with Trumbull. He ought to l>e a good wit- 
ness, and I will read an extract from a speech which he made in 
1856, when he was mad because his friend Lincoln had been cheated. 
It is one of numerous speeches of the same tenor that were made 
about that time, exposing this bargain between Lincoln, Trumbull, 
and the Abolitionists. Mathenv then said: — 



216 JONESBORO DERATE, SEPTEMliEi^ 1"). 1858. 

••Tlif Wluj,'s. Ab»)liuonists, Kiiow-Nolliintrs, and ri-n('t,'iule Democrats 
matle a s«>li'mn compact for tlic iiurix)sc of carryinj,' tliis State against the 
D«'m«)cracy. on tliis plan: 1st. That tln-y would all combine and eU-ct Mr. 
Trumbull to Conyrcs-s, and tlu-rt-by carry his district for the Lcffislaturt', 
in ord<T to throw all the stronf:th that could be obtained into that body 
asjainst the Democrats. 2d. That when the Le>:islature should meet, the 
ortlcers of that biwly, such as SiM-aker, clerks, door-keepers, etc., would be 
>riven to the Abolitionists; and ;U1. That the Whim's were to have the 
llnit«-d States SenaU)r. That, accordinfj:ly. in irood faith, Trumbull was 
eh'cted to Con-rress, and his district carried for tin- Lef,'islature, and, when 
it c«)nvened, the Abolitionists ^ot all the ollicers of that body; and, thus 
far, the • boiul ' was fairly executed. Tin- Whif,'s, on their part, demanded 
the election of Abraham Lincoln to the United States Senate, that tlie 
bond mi^'lit be fulfilled, the other parties to the contract huvinj,' already 
secured to themselves all tliat was called for. Hut, in tin- most pi-rfidious 
manner, they refu.sed to elect Mr. Lincoln, and the mean, low-lived, sneak- 
in-r Trumbull succeeded, by pledLMU^r all that was retpiired by any party, 
in thrustinj,' Lincoln aside, and foistinj; himself, an excrescence from the 
rotten bowels of the Democracy, into the United States Senate: and thus 
it has ever been, that an honext man makes a bad bargain when he con- 
spires or contracts with rogues." 

Mtithenv thought that his friend Lincoln made a IkuI bargain 
when he conspired and coiitraeleil wilii suili rogues as TruinhuU 
and his Alioiition associates in tliat campaign. J^incolu was shoved 
off the track, and lie and his friends all at once began to mope, be- 
came sour and mad, and disposed to tell, but dare not; and thus 
they stood for a long time, until the Abolitionists coaxed and tlat- 
t<.'red him back by their assurances that he should certainly be a 
senator in Douglas's place. In that way tlie Abolitionists have 
been enabled to hold Lincoln to the alliance up to this time, and 
now they have l)rought him into a light against me, and he is to see 
if he is a;.':iin to l)e cheated by them. Lincoln this time, though, 
re<jtiiit d mo:c of them than a promise, and holds their bond, if not 
security, that iiovcjoy shall not cheat-him as Trumbull did. 

When the Republican Convention assembled at Springfield, in 
June last, for the purpose of nominating State olliceis only, the 
Abolitionists could not get Lincoln and his friends into it until llicy 
would ple(lgc tiiemselves that Linc(^)ln should be their cMiulidale for 
the Senate; and you will find, in proof of this, that that ('«)nvi'ntion 
pii8.Hed 11 resolution unanimcjusly declaring tliat Abraham Lincoln 
WS18 the "first, last, and only choice " of the lvei)iibrK aiis for Cnited 
States Senator. He was not willing to have it understood that he 
was merely their first choice, or their hist choice, but their o/z/y 
eholce. The Black Hepublicaii party lia<l nobody else. Hrowning 



DOUGLAS. 247 

was nowhere; Governor Bissell was of no account; Archie Williams 
was not to be taken into consideration; John Wcntworth was not 
worth montiDning; John M. Palmer was degraded; and their party 
presented the extraordinary spectacle of having but oiie, — the first, 
the last, and only choice for the Senate. 

Suppose that Lincoln should die, what a horrible condition the 
Republican party would be in ! They would have nobody left. 
They have no other choice, and it was necessary for them to put 
themselves before the world iu this ludicrous, ridiculous attitude of 
having no other choice, in order to quiet Lincoln's suspicions, and 
assure him that he was not to be cheated by Lovejoy, and the trick- 
ery by which Trumbull outgeneraletl him. Well, gentlemen, I 
think they will have a nice time of it before they get through. 1 
do not intend to give them any chance to cheat Lincoln at all this 
time. I intend to relieve him of all anxiety upon that subject, and 
spare them the mortification of more exposures of contracts violated, 
and the pledged honor of rogues forfeited. 

THE CHIEF POINTS. 

But I wish to invite your attention to the chief points at issue 
between Mr. Lincoln and myself iu this discussion. Mr. Lincoln, 
knowing that he was to be the candidate of his party, on account of the 
arrangement of which I have already spoken, knowing that he was 
to receive the nomination of the Convention for the United States 
Senate, had his speech, accepting that nomination, all written and 
committed to memory, ready to be delivered the moment the nomi- 
nation was announced. Accordingly, when it was made, he w\as in 
readiness, and delivered his speech, a portion of which I wull read 
in order that I may state his political principles fairly, by repeat- 
ing them in his own language : — 

"We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was instituted for the 
avowed object, and with the confident promise, of putting an end to 
slavery agitation ; under the operation of tliat policy, tliat agitation has 
not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. I believe it will not 
cease until a crisis shall have been reached and i^assed. 'A house divided 
agiiinst itself cannot stand. I believe this Government cannot endure per- 
manently, half Slave and half Free. I do not expect the Union to be dis- 
solved, I do not expect the house to fall ; but I do expect it will cease to be 
divided. It will become all one thing or all the other. Either the oppo- 
nents of slavery will arrest the spread of it, and place it where the public 
mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, 
or its advocates will push it forward until it shall become alike lawful in 
all the States, North as well as South." 



•_'H JoNKSliolJo DKHATK, SEPTEMlJKIl i:., 1,<)8. 

TIk'IV vtiii liavi' Mr. Lincoln's first and main proposition, upon 
«hifli hv bases liis flaiins, slated in his own lanj;ua<ie. He tells 
you that this Kepuhlic cannot endure permanent I}' divided into 
Slave and Free States, us our fathere made it. He says that they 
must all become Free or all become Slave, that they must all be one 
thing or all Ite the other, or this (Jovernment cannot last. Why can 
it not hist, if we will execute the Government in the same s})irit and 
upon the same principles upon which it is founded? Lincoln, b}' 
his proposition, says to the South : '-If you desire to maintain your 
institutions as they are now, you must not be satisfied with minding 
y<»urown business, but you must invade Illinois and all the other 
Northern States, establish slavery in then), and m::kc it universal;' 
and in the same language he says to the North: " Vou must not be 
content with regidating your own all'airs and minding your own bus- 
iness, but if you desire "to maintain your freedom, you must invade 
the Southern States, abolish slavery there and everywhere, in order 
to have the States all one thing (;r all the otlii'r. ' 

I say that this is the inevitable iind irresistible result of Mr. 
Lincoln's argument, inviting a warfare l)etween the North and the 
South, to be carried on with ruthless vengeance until the one section 
or the other shall be driven to the wail, and l)ecome the victim of 
the rapacit}' of the other. "What gooil would follow such a system 
of warfare? Suppose the North should succeed in concjuerijig the 
South, how much would she be the gainer? Or suppose the South 
should conquer the North, could the t'nion be preserved in that 
way? Is this sectional warfare to be waged between the Northern 
States and Soutliein States until they all shall become unifoiin in 
their local and ilomestic institutions, luerely because Mr. Jiincoln 
says that a house divided against itself cannot stand, and preti-nds 
that this scriptural (jMotatioii, tliis language of our Ii'>rd and .>Iaster, 
is applicable to the American I'liionand the American Constitution? 

Washington and his compeers, in the Convention that framed 
the Constitution, made this (Jovernment ilivided into Free and Slave 
Stiites. It was composed then of thirtei'u soveri'ign and inde- 
pj'udcnt States, each having sovereign authority over its local anil 
domestic institutions, and all liouml together by tlu' Federal Consti- 
tution. Mr. Lincoln likens that boml of the i'ederal Constitution, 
joining Free ami Slave States together, to a house divi(h'd against 
it.self, :intl s;iys that it is c«»ntrary to th»' law of (lod. and cannot 
fltund. When did he learn, and by what authority does he proclaim, 
that tliis (rovernment is conlrarv to the law of ( lod and cannot stand? 



DOUGLAS. 249 

It has stood thus divided into Free and Slave States from its organ- 
ization up to this day. J)iuiug that period we have increased from 
four millions to thirty millions of people ; w(! have extended our 
territory from the Mississippi to the Pacific Ocean , we have ac- 
quired the Flori(Uis and Texas, and other territory sufficient to 
double our geographical extent ; we have increased in popuhition, 
in weallli, and in power beyond any example on earth; we have 
risen from a weak and feeble power to become the terror and ad- 
miration of the civilized world ; and all this has been done under a 
Constitution which ^Ir. Lincoln, in substance, says is in violation 
of the law of (Un\, and under a Union divided into Free and Slave 
States, which Mr. Lincoln thinks, because of such division, cannot 
stand. 

Surely Mr. Lincoln is a wiser man than those who framed the 
Government. Washington did not believe, nor did his compatriots, 
that the local laws and domestic institutions that were well adapted 
to the Green Mountains of Vermont were suited to the rice planta- 
tions of South Carolina ; they did not believe at that day that in a 
Kepublic so broad and expanded as this, containing such a variety 
of climate, soil, and interest, that uniformity in the local laws and 
domestic institutions was either desirable or possible. They be- 
lieved then, as our experience has proved to us now, that each local- 
ity, having ditferent interests, a different climate, and different 
surroundings, required different local laws, local policy, and local 
institutions, adapted to the wants of that locality. Thus our 
Coveniment was formed on the principle of diversity in the local 
institutions and laws, and not on that of uniformity. 

DRED SCOTT CASE, AND THE DECLARATION. 

As my time flies, I can only glance at these points, and not pre- 
sent them as fully as I would wish, because I desire to bring all the 
points in controversy' between the two parties before you, in order 
to have Mr. Lincoln's reply. He makes war on the decision of the 
Supreme Court, in the case known as the Dred Scott case. I wish 
to say to you, fellow-citizens, that I have no war to make on that 
decision, or any other ever rendered l)y the Supreme Court. I am 
content to take that decision as it stands delivered by the highest 
judicial tribunal on earth, — a tribunal established by the Constitu- 
tion of the United States for that purpose ; and hence that decision 
becomes the law of the land, l»iuding on you, on me, and on every 
other good citizen, whether we like it or not. Hence I do not choose 



250 .loNKSlloPvO DKHATR, SKPTF.M15F.R 1".. l,*^'.,^. 

to go into an argument to prove, before this audience, whether or 
not Chief Justice Taney understood the law better than Abraham 
Lincoln. 

Mr. Lincoln objects to that tlccLsion, first :in<l iniiinly because it 
deprives the iietjjro of the ri<j;ht of citizenship. I am as much op- 
posed to his reason for that objection as 1 am to tlie ol)jection itself. 
I hohl that a ne^ro is not and never ouj;ht to be a citizen of the 
United States. I liold lliat lliis (lovcniment was niadc on the white 
basis, l)V white men, lor the benelit of whiti' men and th»-ir posterity 
forever, and sliould be administered by whiti' men and none others. 
I do not believe that the Almighty made the negro capable of self- 
government. I am aware llial all the Al)olition lecturers that you 
find travcliiii: about tlirou«,di the country are in the habit of readinj; 
the Declaration of Independence to prove that all men were created 
equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, 
among which were life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Mr. 
Lincoln is very much in the habit of following in the track of Love- 
jo}' in this ptirticular, by reading that part of the Declaration of 
Independence to prove that the negro was endowed by the Almight}' 
with the inalienable right of eciuality with white men. 

Now, I say to you, my fellow-citizens, that in my opinion the 
signers of the Declaration had no reference to the negro whatever 
when they declared all men to be created equal. They desired to 
express by that phrase white men, men of European birth and 
European descent, and had no reference either to the negro, the 
savage Lulians, the Fijian, the Malay, or any other inferior and de- 
graded race, when they spoke of the equality of men. One great 
evidence that stub was tbi'ir understanding is to be found in tlii' 
fact that at that time every one of the thirteen colonies was a 
slave-holding colony, every signer of tin- Di'chuation represented 
a slaveholiling constituency, and we know that no one of them 
emancii)atcd bis slaves, much less offered citizenship to tliein, 
when they signed the Declaration; and yet, if tln'V intended to de- 
clare that the negro was the efpial of the white man, and entitled by 
divine right to an equality with him, they were bound, as honest 
men, that day and hour to have put their ni'groes on an t'(piality 
with tlu'mselves. Instead of doing so, with uplifted eyi'S to Heaven 
tln'V implored the divine blessing upon them, during the seven 
years' bloody war ihi-y had to light to maintain that Declaration, 
never dreaming that tln-y were violating divine law by still holding 
the negroes in bcjudage and dipriving tliem of eipialit}'. 



DOUGLAS. 251 

My friends, I am in favor of preserving tliis Government as our 
fathers made it. It does not follow by any means that because a 
negro is not your equal or mine, that hence he must necessarily be 
a slave. On the contrary, it does follow that we ought to extend 
to the negro every right, every privilege, every immunity, which 
he is capable of enjoying, consistent with the good of societ3^ 
When you ask me what these rights are, what their nature and ex- 
tent is, I tell j-ou that that is a question which each State of this 
Union must decide for itself. Illinois has already decided the 
question. We have decided that the negro must not be a slave 
within our limits, but we have also decided that the negro shall not 
be a citizen within our limits; that he shall not vote, hold office, or 
exercise any political rights. I maintain that Illinois, as a sov- 
ereign State, has a right thus to fix her policy with reference to the 
relation between the white man and the negro; but while we had 
that right to decide the question for ourselves, we must recognize 
the same right in Kentucky and in every other State to make the 
same decision, or a different one. Having decided our own policy 
with reference to the black race, we must leave Kentucky and Mis- 
souri and every other State perfectly free to make just such a decis- 
ion as they see proper on that question. 

Kentucky has decided that question for herself. She has said 
that within her limits a negro shall not exercise any political rights, 
and she has also said that a portion of the negroes under the laws 
of that State shall be slaves. She had as much right to adopt that 
as her policy as we had to adopt the contrary for our policy. New 
York has decided that in that State a negro may vote if he has $250 
worth of property, and if he owns that much he may vote upon an 
equality with the white man. I, for one, am utterly opposed to 
negro suffrage anywhere and under any circumstances; yet, inas- 
much as the Supreme Court have decided in the celebrated Dred 
Scott case that a State has a right to confer the privilege of voting 
upon free negroes, I am not going to make war upon New York 
because she has adopted a policy repugnant to my feelings. But 
New York must mind her own business, and keep her negro suffrage 
to herself, and not attempt to force it upon us. 

In the State of Maine they have decided that a negro may vote 
and hold office on an equality with a white man. I had occasion to 
say to the senators from Maine, in a discussion last session, that if 
they thought that the white people within the limits of their State 
were no better than negroes, I would not quarrel with them for it, 



2r»L' .loNKSHORO DKBATK, SKPTKMHEK 1'.. la'iS. 

hut tlifV mu>t iiul say lliat my wliiti- coiistilucnts nf Illinois were 
no U'tler than negroes, or we woiiM l»e sure to quarrel. 

The Dred Scott decision covers the whole question, aii<l declares 
that encli Stal*- li:.> tin- ri<ilit lo setlie this (jiif>li(iii of sull'ra^^'e for 
itself, and all (juestions as to the relations between the \\ liiU- 111:111 
and the neun). Judge Taney expressly lays down the doctrine. , I 
receive it as law, ami I say that wliile tlntse States are adopting 
refjulations on that subjeet dis}j:ustin<; and abhorrent, aeeording to 
uiy views, I will not make war on them if they will mind their own 
business and let us alone. 

win M'T IIAI.K rilKK AMI II.VI.K SLAVE? 

I now eonie back to the cjuestion, Why cannot this Union exist 
forever, divided into Free and Slave States, as our fathers made it ? 
It ean tlius exist if each State will cany out the principles upon 
which our institutions were founded; to wit, the right of each SUite 
to do as it pleases, without mediUing with its neighbors. Just act 
upon that great principle, and this Union will not only live forever, 
but it will extend and expand until it covers the whole continent, 
and makes this confederacy one grand ocean-V)ound Kepublic. We 
must bear in mind that we are yet a young nation, growing with a 
rapidity uneciualled in the history of tlie world, that our national 
increase is great, and that the emigration from tlie ()!<1 World is 
increasing, re(juiriiig us to exjiand and acquire new territory from 
time to lime, in order to give our people land to live upf)n. If we 
live up to tlie principle of State rights and State sovereignty, each 
State regulating its own atlairs and minding its own business, we 
can go 0:1 and extend indelinitely, just as fast and as f.sr at: we need 
tlie territory. The time may come indeed has now come, when our 
inteiesls w<nild be advanced by the accjuisition of t!:e Island of 
Cuba. When we get Ciiita we must take it as we liiid it, leaving 
the people to decidi- the (piestioli of slavery for themselves, without 
iiiterfeieiice on the pari of the I'ederal ( loveriiiiient or of any Stati' 
of this Union. 

So, when it Ik'couu's necessary to ac(|uire any portion of .^Iexico 
or (.'anada, or of this continent or the adjoining ishinds, we must 
take them as we lind them, leaving the people fret' to do as they 
please. to have Klavery or not, as tlii-y clioo.se I never have in- 
(juired and never will incjuin' whetlu-r a new State, applying for 
admission, has slavery or not for one of her institutions. If tin- 
Constitution that is presented be the act and deed of the people. 



DOUGLAS. 253 

and eml)odios their will, and tht\y have the nniuisite population, I 
will admit them, with shivery or without it, just as that people shall 
determine. My objection to the Lecompton Constitution did not 
consist in the fact that it made Kansas a Slave State. I would 
have been as much opposed to its admission under such a Constitu- 
tion as a Free State as I was opposed to its admission under it as a 
Slave State. I hold that that was a question which that people had 
a right to decide for themselves, and that no power on earth ought 
to have interfered with that decision. In my opinion, the Ivecomp- 
ton Constitution was not the act and deed of the people of Kansas, 
and did not embody their will; and the recent election in that Terri- 
tory', at which it was voted down by nearly ten to one, shows con- 
clusively that I was right in sa3'ing, when the Con.stitution was pre- 
sented, that it was not the act and deed of the people, and did not 
embody their will. 

If we wish to preserve our institutions in their purity, and trans- 
mit them unimpaired to our latest posterity, we must preserve with 
religious good faith that great principle of self-government which 
guarantees to each and every State, old and new, the right to make 
just such constitutions as they desire, and come into the Union with 
their own constitution, and not one palmed upon them. Whenever 
you sanction the doctrine that Congress may crowd a constitution 
down the throats of an unwilling people, against their consent, you 
will subvert the great fundamental principle upon which all our free 
institutions rest. In the future I have no fear that the attempt 
will ever be made. President Buchanan declared in his annual 
message that hereafter the rule adopted in the Minnesota case, re- 
quiring a constitution to be submitted to the people, should be fol- 
lowed in all future cases; and if he stands by that recommendation 
there w ill be no division in the Democratic party on that principle 
in the future. Hence, the great mission of the Democracy is to 
unite the fraternal feeling of the whole country, restore peace and 
quiet, by teaching each State to mind its own business, and regu- 
late its own domestic affairs, and all to unite in carrying out the 
Constitution as our fathers made it, and thus to preserve the Union 
and render it perpetual in all time to come. 

Why should we not act as our fathers who made the Govern- 
ment? There was no sectional strife in Washington's army. They 
were all brethren of a common confederacy; they fought under a 
common flag that they might bestow upon their posterity a common 
destiny; and to this end they poured out their blood in common 
streams, and shared, in some instances, a common grave. 



LT, I .lo.NESliOlU) l>i:i!ATi:, SKPIKMIIKK 1"), l&W. 

MK. LINCOLN'S KKIM^Y. 

Ladiks AND (iKXTLKMKN: TIr'Iv IS vct}- mufU ill tlio principles 
that .Iiuli,'i' l>ou|j:las has here enunciated that I most cordially ap- 
])n)Vf, Miitl over whicli T sIimII have no coiitrovfrsy witli liiui. In SO 
far as he has insisted that all the States have the right to do ex- 
actly as they please about all their domestic relations, including 
that of slavery, I agree entirely with him. lie phui's uw wrong in 
spilt' of all 1 ran ttU liiiii, tli<iii>jli I repeat it ajfaiii and a<;ain, in- 
sisting that I have no difference with him upon this subject. I 
have made a {jrcat many speeches, some of which have been 
printed, and it will be utterly impossible for him U) find :inythin<j; 
that I have ever put in print contrary- to what I now say upon tiiis 
subject. I hold myself under Constitutional obligations to allow tlie 
people in all the States, without interference, direct or indirect, to 
do exactly as llu-y please; and I deny that I have any inelination 
to interfere with them, even if tlu-re were no sueh Constitutional ob- 
ligation. I can only say again that I am placed improperly — alto- 
gether improperly, in spite of all I can say — ^ when it is insisted 
that I entertain any other view or purpose in regard to that 
matter. 

While I am ujjon this subject, I will make some answers briefly 
to certain propositions that Judge Douglas has put. He says, 
""Why can't this Union endure permanently, half Slave and half 
Free ? " I have said that I supposed it could not, and I will try, be- 
fore this new audience, to give briefly some of the reasons for enter- 
taining that opinion. Another form of his (piestion is, •' "Why i-an't 
we let it stand as our fathers placed it?" That is the exact diffi- 
culty between us. I say that Judge Douglas and his friends have 
changed it from the position in which our fathers originally placed 
it. 1 say. in the wa\' our fatliers oiiginally left tin- sla\i'iv (pies- 
tion, the institution was in the course of ultimate extinction, and 
the public mind rested in the belief that it uuis in the course of ulti- 
mate extinction. I say, when this (Jovernment was flrst establislu'd, 
it was the policy of its founders to prohibit the spread of slavery 
into the new Territories of the Knited States, where it had not ex- 
isted. Hill Judge Douglas and his friends have broken up that 
policy, and placed it upon a new basis, by which it is to become 
national and perpetual. All 1 have ask«'d or desired anywhere is 
that it should lie placed back again upon flic basis tli.at the fathers 
of our (lovernmeiit originally placed it upon. I have no doubt that 



LINCOLN. 255 

it toould become extinct, for nil time to come, it" we Imt ix'-adopted 
the policy of the fathers, l)y restrictini^ it to the limits it hiis al- 
ready covered, — restricting it from the new Territories. 

I do not wisli to dwell at great length on this ])ranch of the sub- 
ject at this time, but allow me to repeat one thing that I have 
stated before. Krooks — the man who assaulted Senator Sumner 
on the lioor of the Senate, and who was complimented with dinners, 
and silver pitchers, and gold-headed canes, and a good many other 
things for that feat — in one of his speeches declared that when 
this Government was originally eSta])lished, nobody expected that 
the institution of slavery would last until this day. IMiat was but 
the opinion of one man, but it was such an opinion as we can never 
get from Judge Douglas or anj^body in favor of slavery in the North 
at all. You can sometimes get it from a Southern man. lie said 
at the same time that the framers of our Government did not have 
the knowledge that experience has taught us ; that experience and 
the invention of the cotton-gin have taught us that the perpetuation 
of slavery is a necessity. He insisted, therefore, upon its being 
changed from the basis upon which the fathers of the Government 
left it to the basis of its perpetuation and nationalization. 

I insist that this is the difference between Judge Douglas and 
myself, — that Judge Douglas is helping that change along. I in- 
sist upon this Government being placed where our fathers originally 
placed it. 

I remember Judge Douglas once said that he saw the evidences 
on the statute books of Congress of a policy in the origin of the 
Government to divide slavery and freedom by a geographical line ; 
that he saw an indisposition to maintain that policy, and therefore 
he set about studying up a way to settle the institution on the right 
basis, — the basis which he thought it ought to have been placed 
upon at first ; and in that speech he confesses that he seeks to place 
it, not upon the basis that the fathers placed it upon, but upon one 
gotten up on "original principles." When he asks me why we can- 
notget along with it in the attitude where our fathers placed it, he 
had better clear up the evidences that he has himself changed it 
from that basis, that he has himself been chiefly instrumental in 
changing the policy of the fathers. Any one who will read his 
speech of the 22d of last March will see that he there makes an open 
confession, showing that he set about fixing the institution upon an 
altogether different set of principles. I think I have fully answered 
him when he asks me why we cannot let it alone upon the basis 



2r)r. .U)NKS|{()|;<» DKHA'I'K. SKI' TKMHKK i:., 1S.-)S. 

where our fathers left it, by showing that he has himself changed 
the whole policy of the Government in that regard. 

Now, fi'llow-cili/.ciis, ill n';j;:u<l ti) this matter about a fontract 
that was math' bt'twtM-n .Iiidjjo Tniiiiluill and iiiyself, aiul all that 
long portion of Judge Doughis's speech on this subject, — [wish 
simply to say what I have said to him before, that he cannot know 
whi-ther it is true or not, and I do /ciniin that there is not a word of 
truth in it. And 1 nave tt)Id him so before. I don't w.mt any 
harsh language indulged in, but I do not know how to deal with 
this persistent insisting on a story that I know to l)e utterly witiiout 
truth. It used to be a fasiiion amongst men that when a charge 
was made, some sort of proof was brouglit forward to establish it, 
and if no pn>of was found to exist, the charge was dropped. I 
don't know how U) meet this kin<l of an argument. I don't want 
to have a tight willi .Judge Douglas, and I have no wa}' of making 
an argument up into the consistenc}' of a corn-cob and stopping his 
mouth with it. All I can do is, good-humoredly to say that, from 
the beginning to the end of all that story aI)out a bargain between 
Judge Trumbull and lUN'self, t/icrr is not a icord of (ruth in it. 

I can only ask him to show some sort of evidence of the truth 
of his story. He brings forward here and reads from what he con- 
tends is a speech by James H. Matheny, charging such a b.irgain 
between Trumi)ull and myself. My own opinion is that Matheny 
did do some such immoral thing as to tell a story that he knew 
nothing about. I believe he did. I contradicteil it instantly, and 
it lias been contradicted by Judge Trumbull, while nol)ody has pro- 
duced any proof, because there is none. Now, whether the speech 
which the Judge brings forward here is really the one Matheny made, 
1 do not know, and 1 hope the Judge will pardon me for doubting the 
genuineness of this document, since his production of those Spring- 
field resolutions at Ottawa. I do not wish to dwell at any great 
length upon this matter. 1 can say nothing when a long story like 
this is told, except it is not true, and demand that he who insists 
upon it shall produce some proof. That is all any man can do, and 
I leave it in that way, for I know of no other way of dealing with it. 

THE COMI'KUMISK oK IS.')!). 

The Judge has gone over a long account of the old Whig and 
f>eni(K'ratic parties, and it connects it.self with this charge against 
Trumbull and myself. lie says that they agree^l upon a compro- 
mise in regard to the slavery (juest ion in 1S.')(I; that in a National 



LINCOLN. 257 

Democratic Convention resolutions were passed to abide by that 
compromise as a finality upon the slavery question. He also says 
that the Whig party in National Convention agreed to abide by and 
regard as a finality the Compromise of 1850. I understand the 
Judge to l)c altogether right about that; I understand that part of 
the histor}' of the counti-j^ as stated by him to be correct. I recol- 
lect that I, as a member of that part}', acquiesced in that com- 
promise. I recollect in the Presidential election which followed, 
when we had Greneral Scott up for the Presidency, Judge Douglas 
was around berating us Whigs as Abolitionists, precisely as he does 
to-day, — not a bit of ditference. I have often heard him. We 
could do nothing when the old Whig party was alive that was not 
Abolitionism ; but it has got an extremely good name since it has 
passed away. 

When that Compromise w^as made it did not repeal the old 
Missouri Compromise. It left a region of United States territory 
half as large as the present territory of the United States, north of 
the line of 36 degrees 30 minutes, in which slavery was prohibited 
by Act of Congress. This Compromise did not repeal that one. It 
did not affect or propose to repeal it. But at last it became Judge 
Douglas's duty, as he thought (and I find no fault with him), as 
Chairman of the Committee on Territories, to bring in a bill for the 
organization of a Territorial Government, — first of one, then of 
two Territories north of that line. When he did so, it ended in his 
inserting a provision substantially repealing the Missouri Com- 
promise. T'lKit was because the Compromise of 1850 hid not re- 
pealed it. 

And now I ask why he could not have let that Compromise 
alone? We were quiet from the agitation of the slavery question. 
We were making no fuss about it. All had acquiesced in the Com- 
promise measures of 1850. We never had been seriouslj' disturbed 
by any Abolition agitation before that period. When he came to 
■ form governments for the Territories north of the line of 36 degrees 
30 minutes, why could he not have let that matter stand as it was 
standing? Was it necessary to the organization of a Territory? 
Not at all. Iowa lay north of the line, and had been organized as 
a Territory and come into the Union as a State without disturbing 
that Compromise. There was no sort of necessity for destroying it 
to organize these Territories. 

But, gentlemen, it would take up all ray time to meet all the 
little quibbling arguments of Judge Douglas to show that the 
17 



258 .lONESHORO DEBATE. SEPTEMIJKIl 15, ISTA 

Missouri Com prom isc was repeak-d by tlu- Compromise of 1850. 
My own opinion is, tliat a careful investigation of all the arguments 
U) sustain tiie position that that Compromise was virtually repealed 
bv the Compromise of IS;")!) wouM show tliat they are the merest 
fallacies. I have the Report that Ju<lge Douglas first brought into 
Congress at the time of the introtluction of the Nebraska bill, 
which in its original form did not repeal the Missouri Compromise, 
and he there expressly stated that he had forborne to do so In en use 
it hiid not bnn dour hi/ the Conijjronii.se of ISbO. I close this part of 
the discussion on my part l)y asking him the question again, "Why, 
when we had i>eace under the Missouri Compromise, could you not 
have let it ahMie? " 

In complaining of what I said in ray speech at Springfield, in 
which he says I accepted my nomination for the senatorship (where, 
l>y the way, he is at fault, for if he will examine it, he will find uo 
acceptiince in it), he again (piotes that portion in which I said that 
"a house diviiled against itself cannot stand.' Let me say a word 
in regard to that matter. 

He tries to j)ersuade us that there must l)e a variety in the dif- 
ferent institutions of the States of the Union ; that that variety 
necessarily proceeds from the vaxiety of soil, climate, of the face of 
the country, and the difference in the natural features of the States. 
I agree to all that. Have these very matters ever produced any 
difliculty amongst us? Not at all. Have we ever had any quan-el 
over the fact that they have laws in Louisiana designed to regulate 
the commerce that springs from the production of sugar? Or 
because we have a different class relative to the production of flour 
in this State? Have they produced any diflerences? Not at all. 
They are the very cements of this Onion. They do n't make the 
house a house divided against itself. They are the props that hold 
up the house and sustiiin the Union. 

Jiut has it been so with this element of slavt-iy? Have we not 
always had (piarrels and dillicullies over it? Ami when will we 
cease to have cjuarrels over it? liike causes produce like elfects. 
It is worth while to <)i)serve tliat we have generally had comparative 
peace upon the slavery (juestion, and that there has l)een no cause 
for alarm until it was excited by the elfort to spread it into new- 
territory. Whenever it has been limited to its present l)ounds, and 
there has been no elfort to spread it, there has been peace. All the 
trouble and convulsion has proceeded from elforts to spread it over 
more territory. It was thus at the date of the Missouri Compro- 



LINCOLN. 259 

mise. It was so again with the annexation of Texas; so with the 
territory acquired by the Mexican war; and it is so now. When- 
ever there has been an effort to spread it, there has been agitation 
and resistance. 

Now, I appeal to this audience (very few of whom are my politi- 
cal friends), as national men, whether we have reason to expect 
that the agitation in regard to this subject will cease while the 
causes that tend to reproduce agitation are actively at work? Will 
not the same cause that produced agitation in LS20, when the Mis- 
souri Compromise was formed, — that wliich produced the agitation 
upon the annexation of Texas, and at other times, — work out the 
same results always? Do you think that the nature of man will be 
changed? that the same causes that produced agitation at one time 
will not have the same effect at another? 

This has been the result so far as my observation of the slavery 
question and my reading in history extends. What right have we 
then to hope that the trouble will cease, — that the agitation will 
come to an end, — until it shall either be placed back where it origi- 
nally stood, and where the fathers originally placed it, or, on the 
other hand, until it shall entirely master all opposition? This is 
the view I entertain, and this is the reason why I entertained it, as 
Judge Douglas has read from my Springfield speech. 

SOME DEMOCRATIC RESOLUTIONS AS TO SLAVERY. 

Now, my friends, there is one other thing that I feel myself un- 
der some sort of obligation to mention. Judge Douglas has here 
to-day — in a very rambling way, I was about saying — spoken of 
the platforms for which he seeks to hold me responsible. He says, 
"Why can't you come out and make an open avowal of principles 
in all places alike? " and he reads from an advertisement that he 
says was used to notify the people of a speech to be made b}^ Judge 
TrumouU at Waterloo. In commenting on it he desires to know 
whether we cannot speak frankly and manfully, as he and his 
friends do. How, I ask, do his friends speak out their own senti- 
ments? A Convention of his party in this State met on the 21st of 
April at Springfield, and passed a set of resolutions which they pro- 
claim to the country as their platform. This does constitute their 
platform, and it is because Judge Douglas claims it is his platform 
— that these are his principles and purposes — that he has a right 
to declare he speaks his sentiments "frankly and manfully." On 
the 9 th of June, Colonel John Dougherty, Governor Reynolds, and 



L*GO JONESBOUO DKHATi:. SEPTP:MBKII 1."). ISTyH. 

others, <-:ilIiiij^ Ihcuisi'lvfs Nalioiial Di'inucrats, mt*t in Ppriugfickl 
ami ailopU'il ii set of resolutions wliicb are as easily understood, as 
plain and as definite in stating to the countr}' and to the worM what 
they believed in and would stand upon, as Jud>;e l)()U<>;las"s plat- 
forui. Now, what is the reason, that Judge Douglas is not willing 
that Colonel D.tughcrty and Oovernor Reynolds should stand upon 
their own written and printed platform as well as he upon his? 
Why must he look farther than their platform when he claims him- 
self to stand i)y his platform? 

Again, in reference to our platform: On the ItJlhof June the Re- 
publicans had their Convention and pul)lished their platform, which 
is as clear and distinct as Judge Douglass. In it they spoke their 
principles as plainly and as definitely to the world. What is the 
reason that Judge Douglas is not willing I should stand upon that 
platform? Why must he go around hunting for some one who is 
supporting me, or has supported me at some time in his life, and 
who has said something at some time contrar}- to that platform? 
Does the Judge regard that rule as a good one? If it turn out that 
the rule is a good one for me, — that I am responsil)le for any and 
every opinion that any man has expressed who is my friend,— then 
it is a good rule for him. I ask. Is it not as good a rule for him as 
it is for me? In my opinion, it is not a good rule for either of us. 
Do you think differently, Judge? 

Mr. Diinyjiis. — I do not. 

Mr. Lincoln. — Judge Douglas says he docs not think dilferently. 
I am glail of it. Then can he tell me why he is hxjking up resolu- 
tions of five or six years ago, and insisting that they were my plat- 
form, notwithstanding ni}' protest that they are not, and never were 
my platform, and my pointing out the platform of the State Con- 
vention which he delights to say nominated me for the Senate? I 
cannot see what he means by parading these resolutions, if it is 
not to hold me responsilile for them in some way. If he says to me 
here that he docs not hold tiie rule to l)e good, (Uie way or tlu' other, 
I <io not comprchcntl how he could answer me more fully if he an- 
swered me at gr«'a1»r length. 

I will therefore put in as my answer to the resolutions thai he 
has hunted u|) against me, what 1, as a lawyer, would call a good 
plea to a l»ad declaration, I understand that it is a maxim of law 
that a poor plea may be a good plea to a bad declaiation. I think 
that the opinions the Jmlge brings from those who support nie. yet 
dilFi r from me, are a l)ad declaration against me; but if 1 can bring 



LINCOLN. 261 

tlie same things against him, I am putting in a good plea to that 
kiml of declaration, and now I propose to try it. 

At Freeport, Judge Douglas occupied a large part of his time in 
producing resolutions and documents of various sorts, as I under- 
stood, to make me somehow responsible for them; and I propose 
now doing a little of the same sort of thing for him. In 1850 a 
very clever gentleman by the name of Thompson Campbell, a per- 
sonal friend of Judge Douglas and myself, a political friend of 
Judge Douglas and opponent of mine, was a candidate for Congress 
in the Galena District. He was interrogated as to his views on this 
same slavery question. 1 have here before me the interrogatories, 
and Campbell's answers to them. I will read them : — 

Interrogatories. 

1. "Will j-ou, if elected, vote for and cordially support a bill prohibiting 
slavery in the Territories of the United States? 

2. Will you vote for and support a bill abolishing slavery in the Dis- 
trict of Columbia? 

3. Will you oppose the admission of any Slave States which may be 
formed out of Texas or the Territories? 

4. Will you vote for and advocate the repeal of the Fugitive Slave lav/ 
passed at the recent .session of Congress? 

5. Will you advocate and vote for the election of a Speaker of the House 
of Representatives who shall be willing to organize the committees of that 
House so as to give the Free States their just influence in the business of 
legislation? 

G. What are your views, not only as to the constitutional riglit of Con- 
gress to prohibit the slave trade between the States, but also as to the ex- 
pediency of exercising that right immediately? 

Campbell's Reply. 

To the first and second interrogatories, I answer unequivocally in the 
affirmative. 

To the third interrogatory I reply, that I am opposed to the admission 
of any more Slave States into the Union, that may be formed out of Texas 
or any other Territorj'. 

To the fourth and fifth interrogatories I unhesitatingly answer in the 
affirmative. 

To the sixth interrogatory I reply, that so long as the Slave States con- 
tinue to treat slaves as articles of commerce, the Constitution confers 
power on Congress to pa.ss laws regulating that peculiar COMMERCE, and 
that the protection of Human Rights imperatively demands the interposi- 
tion of ever}' constitutional means to prevent this most inhuman and 
iniquitous traffic. T.Campbell. 



li(;2 .TONESRORO DERATE. SEPTEMRER 15. 1858. 

1 want bore to .say that Thompson Caiuphcll was elected to 
Congress on that phitform, as the Democratic canilklate in the 
(Jalena District, a<;jainst Martin P. Sweet. 

Jii<li/f I)(iuy/(i.s. — ii'wv n\v tile (late of tlie letter. 

Mr. Lincoln. — The time Camphell ran was in 1850. I have 
not the exact date here. It was sometime in ISf)!) that the.se 
interrogatories were put and the answer given. Camj'hell was 
elected to Congress, and served out his term. 1 think a second 
election came up before he served out his term, and he was not 
re-elected. Whether defeated or not nominated, I do not know. 
[Mr. Camphell was nonnnated for re-election hy the Democratic 
party, by acclamation.] At the end of his term his very good 
friend Judge Douglas got him a high office from President Pierce, 
and sent him olf to California. Is not that the fact? Just 
at the end of his term in Congress it appears that our mutual 
friend Judge Douglas got our mutual friend Campbell a good 
office, and sent him to California upon it. And not only so, but 
on the 27th of last month, when Judge Douglas and my.self spoke 
at Freeport in joint discussion, there was his same friend Campbell, 
come all the way from California, to help the Judge beat me- and 
there was poor Martin I*. Sweet standing on the j)latform, trying to 
helj) poor me to be elected. That is true of one of Judge Douglas's 
friends. 

So again, in the same race of ISoO, there was a Congressional 
Convention assembled at Joliet, and it iiominateil K. S. Molou}' for 
Congress, and unanimousl}' adopted the following resolution: — 

^' Resolved, That we are uncompromisingly opposed to the extension 
of slavery; and while we would not make such opixisilion a ground of in- 
tfrftTcnce with the interests of tht; States where it e.xists, yet wo mod- 
erately but firmly insist that it is the duty of Congn-ss to opiMise its 
extension into Territory now free, by all means compatible with the obli- 
l^ations oi the Const'tution, and with gcMid faith to our sister States : that 
these principles were recognized by the Jrdinance of 17S7, which received 
the sanction of Thomas Jelferson, who is acknowhiUgeU by all to be the 
great oracle and expounder of our faith." 

Subscrpiently the same interrogatories were propounded to Dr. 
Molony whi( h had been addres.sed to Campbell, as above, with the 
exception of the (!th respecting the intersUite slave trade, to 
which Dr. Molony the Democratic nominee for Congress, replied 
as follows: — 

I received the written intiTM;.Mt()ries tliis day, and, as you will see h\ 
the LiiSiilh Diuiornil and Ottawa Fru Truder I took at Peru on the 5th. 



LINCOLN. 263 

and at Ottawa on tho 7th, the afTirmative side of intorrogratorics 1st and 2d; 
and in relation to the admission of any more Slave States from Free Terri- 
tory, my position taken at these meetings, as correctly reported in said 
pai>ers, was emphatically and diHlinctlij opposed to it. In relation to the 
admission of any more Slave States from Pexas, whether I siiall go against 
it or not will depend upon the opinion that 1 maj' hereafter form of the 
true meaning and nature of the re.solutions of annexation. If, by said 
resolutions, the honor and good faith of the nation is pledged to admit more 
Slave States from Texas when she (Texas) may appl> for the admission of 
such States, then I should, if in Congress, vote for their admission. But if 
not so PLEDGED and bound bj' sacred contract, then a bill for tlie admission 
of more Slave States from Texas will never rec(>ive my vote. 

To your fourth interrogatory 1 answer most dcridedhj in the affirmative, 
and for reasons set forth in my rt'i)orted remarks at Ottawa last Monrlay. 

To your fifth interrogatory I also reply in the affirmative most cor- 
dialli/. and that I will use my utmost exertions to secure the nomination 
and election of a man who will accomplish th(! objects of said interroga- 
tories. I most cordially approve of the re.solutions adopted at the union 
meeting held at Princeton on the 27th September ult. 

Yours, etc., R. S. Molony. 

All I hare to say in regard to Dr. Molony is, that he was the 
regularly nominated Democratic candidate for Congress in his dis- 
trict; was elected at that time, at the end of his term was appointed 
to a land-office at Danville. ( I never heard anything of Judge 
Douglas's instrumentality in this.) He held this office a consider- 
al)le time, and when we were at Freeport the other day, there 
were handbills scattered about notifying the public that after our 
debate was over, R. S. Molony would make a Democratic speech in 
favor of Judge Douglas. That is all I know of my own personal 
knowledge. It is added here to this resolution, and I truly be- 
lieve, that — 

"Among those who participated in the Joliet Convention, and who 
supported its nominee, with his platform as laid down in the resolution 
of the Convention and in his reply as above given, we call at random the 
following name.s, all of which are recognized at this day as leading Demo- 
crats: — 

Cook County: E. B. Williams, Charles Mc Donell, Arno Voss. Thomas 
Hoyne. Isaac Cook." 

I reckon we ought to except Cook. 

"F. C. Sherman. - 

"Will: Joel A. Mattcson R. W. Bowen. 

" Kane: B. F. Hall, G. W. Renwick, A. M. Herrington. Elijah Wilcox. 

" Mc Henry: W. M. Jackson. Enos W. Smith, Neil Donnelly. 

"La Salle: .Tohn Hise, William Reddick." 



I'd .loNESnORO DEHATK. SRPTEMHKK 1'.. IHTM. 

Williaiu KetUlifk ! nnotluT (Hic <if .hid^f Douglass fiit'iuls lli:it 
stood on Ihi' staiitl with him at Ottawa, at the tiiue the Judge says 
n»y kiu'i's trenibk'd so that I liad to be earriod away. Tlic nami'S 
ail' all Ik'Iv: — 

'• Dii Pap': Nathan Allfii. 
•• l)i' Kali): Z. H. Mayo." 

Ik-re is another set of resolutions whieh T lliiiik aiv apposite to 
the matter in hand. 

On the 2Sih of Febru:uy of the same year, a Democratic District 
Convention w;is held at Naperville to nominate a c;intlidate for Cir- 
cuit Judge. Among the delegates were liowen and Kelly, of Will; 
Captain Naper. II. 11. Cody, Nathan Allen, of Du P:ige; W. M. 
Jack.'^on. J. M. Strodi-, P. W. Piatt, and Enos W. Smith, of Mc- 
Ilenry; J. Ilorsman and others, of Winnebago. Colonel Strode 
presided over the Convention. The following resolutions were 
unanimously adopted. — the lirst on motion of P. W. Pratt, the 
seconil on motion of William M. Jackson: — ■ 

" Re«ulriil, Tliat Ihi.s Convi-iilion is in favur of ihr Wilmot Proviso, bulli 
in Principle and Prnrtice, and that we know of no pood reason why any 
prrxnn should oppose the lar<::est latitude in Free Soil, Free Territory and 
Free Speer/i. 

"Re-8olre(l, Thai in the opinion of this Convention, the time has arrived 
whi-n all men nhnuUl be free, whites as well as others." 

Jinhjt Ihiitijfds. — What is the dale of those resolutions? 

Mr. Liiiciiln. — I understand it was in 185(1, Imt I do not knoio 
il. I d<j not state u thing and say 1 know it. when I do not. But 
1 have the highest belief that this is so. 1 know of no way to 
arrive at the c<jnclusion that there is an error in it. I mean to put 
a case no stronger than llu' truth will allow. But wh:it I was going 
to comment upon is an extniet from a newspaper in De Kalb Count}'; 
and it strikes me as lieing rather singidar, I confess, under the cir- 
cumstances. There is a .Judge M:iyo in that county, who is a can- 
did:ite for the Legislature, for the purpose, if he secures hiselection, 
of hel|»ing to re-elect Judge Douglas. He is the editor of a news- 
paper [ D<' K:ilb County Stnllnrl]^ and in that paper I find the ex- 
tract 1 am going to read. It is part of an editorial article in which 
lie ^^as electioneering as fiercely as he could for Judge Douglas and 
against me. It w.is a curious thing, I Ihiidi. to lie in such u paper. 
I will agree to lli:it. ;ind tie' .!ii(l<.te in:iy maki' the most of it : — 



LINCOLN. 265 

"Our education has been such tluit we have ever been rather i.i f.tvor 
(if tJce iquulittj of tJu blacks; that Is, that tJiey should enjoif all tha pritileycs of 
the whites johem they reside. We are awiire that this is not a v.^ry popular 
doctrine. We have had many a confab with some who are now strong 
'Republicans,' we taking the broad ground of ('(luality, and they the op- 
posite ground. 

"We were brought up in a State where blacks were voters, and we 
do not know of any inconvenience resulting from it, though perhaps it 
would not work as well where the blacks are more numerous. AVe have 
no doubt of the right of the whitens to guard against such an evil, if it is 
one. t)ur opinion is that it would be best for all concerned to have (lie 
colored population in a State by themselves [in this I agree witii him]; but 
if within the juri.sdiction of the United States, we s\t/ by all means they 
should hare the riyht to have their Senators and Representatives in Conyre^ss, 
and to vote for President. With us ' worth makes the man, and want of it 
the fellow." We have seen many a ' uigger ' that we thought more of than 
some white men." 

That is one of Judge Douglas's friends. Now, I do not want to 
leave myself in au attitude where I can be misrepresented, so I will 
say I do not think the Judge is responsible for this article : but he 
is quite as responsible for it as I would be if one of my friends had 
said it. I think that is fair enough. 

I have here also a set of resolutions passed by a Democratic 
State Convention in Judge Douglas's own good old State of Vermont, 
that I think ought to be good for him too : — 

" liesolced, That liberty is a right inherent and inalienable in man, and 
that herein all men are equal. 

"Resolved, That we claim no authority in the Federal Government to 
abolish slavery in the several States, but we do claim for it Constitutional 
power perpetualh' to prohibit the introduction of slavery into territory now 
free, and abolish it wherever, under the jurisdiction of Congress, it exists. 

''Resolved, That this power ought immediatel}' to be exercised in pro- 
hibiting the introduction and existence of slavery in New Mexico and Cal- 
ifornia, in abolishing slavery and the slave trade in the District of Colum- 
bia, on the high seas, and wherever else, under the Constitution, it can be 
reached. 

•'Resolved, That no more Slave States should be admitted into the Fed- 
eral Union. 

"Resolved, That the Government ought to return to its ancient policy, 
not to extend, nationalize, or encourage, but to limit, localizi', anl discour- 
age slavery." 

At Freeport I answered several interrogatories that had been 
pro[)ounded to me by Judge Douglas at the Ottawa meeting. The 
Judge has not yet seen fit to find any fault with the position that I 
took in regard to those seven interrogatories, which were certainly 



2CG .lONESBORO DEBATE, SEPTEMBER If), 1858. 

bn)a«l luoiigli, in Jill conscience, to cover the entire groinul. In my 
answers, which have been printed, and all have had the opportunity 
of seeinjj, I talte the tjround th:it those who elect me must expect 
that I will d<» notliing which will not be in accordance with those 
answers. 1 have some riirlit to assert that .Jutl<;e Doiij^las has no 
fault to lind with them. Hiit he chooses to still try to thrust me 
uj)on dilFerent jjround, without payin<i; any attention to my answers, 
the obtainini; of which from me cost him so much trouble and con- 
cern. At the same time I propounded l'<»ur interrogatories to hiu), 
claiming it as a right that he should answer as many interrogatories 
for me as I did for him, and I would reserve myself for a future 
installment when 1 got them ready. The Judge, in answering me 
upon that occasion, put in what I suppo.se he intends as answers to 
all four of my interrogatories The first one of these inteiTOgatories 
I have before me, and it is in these words : — 

" Question 1. If the people of Kansas shall, by means entirely unobjec- 
tionable in all otliLT respects, adopt a State Constitution, and ask admis- 
sion into the Union under it, before they have the requisite number of 
iidiabitants accordinfr to the English bill, — some niiitty-three thou.sand, — 
will you vote to admit tliem? " 

As I read the Judge's answer in the newspaper, and as I remem- 
ber it as pronounced at the time, he does not give any answer which 
is equivalent to yes or no, — I will or 1 wont. He answers at ver}' 
considerable length, rather (juarreling with me for asking the (jues- 
tion, and insisting that Judge Trumbull had done something that I 
ought to say something about, aud (inally getting out such state- 
ments as induce me to infer that lu- means to be understood he will, 
in that suppo.sed case, vote for the admission of Kansas. I only 
bring this forward now for tlie i)urpo.se of saying that if iii' chooses 
to put a ditferent construction upon his answer, he may do it. l?ut 
if he does n(d, 1 shall from this time forward assume that he will 
vote for the admission of Kansas in disregard of the English bill. 
He has the right to remove any misunderstanding I may have. I 
only mention it now, that I may hereafter assume tliis to be the 
true construction of his answer, if he does not now choose to correct 
rno 

TII.M' SKCONM) INTERROOATOUV AO.VIN. 

The second iiderrogatory tliat 1 propoiind<tl to him was this : — 

" Qurntion i'. Can tlie people of a United States Territory, in any lawfid 
way, ntrainst the wish of any cili/iri of the Uinli'd Slates, exclude slavery 
from its limits prior to the ftrrmalion of a Slate Constilulion '.' " 



LINCOLN. 267 

To this Judge Douglas answered that they can lawfully exclude 
slavery from the Territory prior to the formation of a Constitution. 
He goes on to tell us how it can be done. As I understand him, 
he holds that it can be done by the Territorial Legislature refusing 
to make any enactments for the protection of slavery in the Territory, 
and especially by adopting unfriendly legislation to it. For the 
sake of clearness, I state it again : that they can exclude slavery 
from the Territory, 1st, by withholding what he assumes to be an 
indispensable assistance to it in the way of legislation ; and, 2d, by 
unfriendly legislation. If I rightly understand him, I wish to ask 
your attention for awhile to his position. 

In the first place, the Supreme Court of the United States has 
decided that any Congressional prohibition of slavery in the Terri- 
tories is unconstitutional ; that they have reached this proposition 
as a conclusion from their former proposition, that the Constitution 
of the United States expressly recognizes property in slaves, and 
from that other Constitutional provision, that no person shall be de- 
prived of property without due process of law. Hence they reach 
the conclusion that as the Constitution of the United States ex- 
pressly recognizes property in slaves, and prohibits any person from 
being deprived of property without due process of law, to pass an 
Act of Congress by which a man who owned a slave on one side of 
a line would be deprived of him if he took him on the other side, is 
depriving him of that property without due process of law. That I 
understand to be the decision of the Supreme Court. I understand 
also that Judge Douglas adheres most firmly to that decision ; and 
the difficulty is, how is it possible for any power to exclude slavery 
from the Territory, unless in violation of that decision ? That is 
the difficulty. 

In the Senate of the United States, in 1856, Judge Trumbull, in 
a speech substantially, if not directly, put the same interrogatory 
to Judge Douglas, as to whether the people of a Territory had the 
lawful power to exclude slavery prior to the formation of a constitu- 
tion. Judge Douglas then answered at considerable length, and 
his answer will be found in the Congressional Globe, under date 
of June 9th, 1856. The Judge said that whether the people could 
exclude slavery prior to the formation of a constitution or not tvas 
(I question to he decided hy the Supreme Court. He put that proposi- 
tion, as will be seen by the Congressional Globe, in a variety of 
forms, all running to the same thing in substance, — that it was a 
question for the Supreme Court. I maintain that when he saj's, 



268 .loXESBORO DERATE. SEPTEMBER 15, 1S58. 

afU-r tin- Suiireiui' (.'uurt have (leculed the <iuestiou, that the people 
may yet exehnle slavery by auy means whatever, he does \ iitually 
say that it is mtt a (juestion for the Supreme Court. 

He sliifts his grouml. I appeal to you whether he did not say 
it was a (luestion for the Supreme Court? Has not the Supreme 
Court deeiiled that (luestion? When he now says the people inni/ex- 
clude slavery, does he not m:ike it a question for the people? Does he 
not virliially shift his ground and say that it is imt a (juestion for 
the court, but for tin- people? This is a very simple proi)osition, 
— a very plain and naked one. It seems to me that there is no 
dillii-ulty in deciding it. In a variety of ways he said that it was a 
([we.stion for the Supreme Court. He did not stop then to tell us 
that wliMtever the Supreme Court decides, the people can by with- 
h(tlding necessary "police regulations "' keep slavery out. He did 
not make any such answer. I submit to you now whether the new 
state of the case has not induced the Judge to sheer away from his 
original ground. Would not this be the impression of every fair- 
minded man? 

I hold that the proposition that slavery cannot enter a new 
country without police regulations is historically false. It is not 
true at all. I hold that the history of this country shows that the 
institution of slavery was originally i)lanted ui)on this contiiu-nt 
xcithnut these " police regulations" which the Judge now thinks 
necessary for the actual establishment of it. Not only so, but is 
there not another fact: how came this Dred Scott decision to be 
made? It was made upon the case of a negro being taken and 
actually held in slavery in Minnes(jta Territory, claiming his free- 
dom because the Act of Congress prohibited his being so held there. 
Will the Jiuhje pntntd that Dird Scott was not htld there without police 
nijiihitl'ms' There is at least one matter of record as to his having 
been held in slavery in the Territory, not only without polii-e regu- 
lations, but in the teeth of Congressional legislation supposed to i)c 
valid at the time. This shows that there is vigor enougii in shivery 
to plant itself in a new country even against unfriendly legislation. 
It takes notonly law, but the enforcement of law to kci'p it out. That 
is the history of this country upon the subject. 

I wish t(i ask one otluT (lueslion. it being understood that the 
Constitution of the I'liited States gmirantees property in slaves in 
the Territories, if then? is any infringement of the right of that 
property, would not tlie United States courts, organized for tiic 
government of the Territory. Jipply such remedy as might be nee- 



LINCOLN. 269 

essary in that case? It is a maxim lielcl by the courts that there is 
no wrong without its remedy; and the courts have a remed}' for 
whatever is acknowledged and treated as a wrong. 

Again: I will ask you, my friends, if you were elected members 
of the Legislature, what would be the first thing you would have to 
do before entering upon j'our duties? Siccar to supjiort the Consli- 
t at 10)1 of the United States. Suppose you believe, as Judge Douglas 
does, that the Constitution of the United States guarantees to your 
neighbor the right to hold slaves in that Territory ; that they are his 
property: how can you clear your oaths unless you give him such 
legislation as is necessary to enable him to enjoy that property? 
AVhat do you understand by supporting the Constitution of a State, 
or of the United States? Is it not to give such constitutional helps 
to the rights established by that Constitution as may be practically 
needed? Can you, if you swear to support the Constitution, and 
believe that the Constitution establishes a right, clear your oath, 
without giving it support? Do you support the Constitution if, 
knowing or believing there is a right established under it which 
needs specific legislation, you withhold that legislation? Do you 
not violate and disregard your oath? I can conceive of nothing 
phuner in the world. There can be nothing in the words "support 
the Constitution," if you may run counter to it by refusing support 
to any right established under the Constitution. And what I say 
here will hold with still more force against the Judge's doctrine of 
" unfriendly legislation." How could you, having sworn to support 
the Constitution, and believing it guaranteed the right to hold slaves 
in the Territories, assist in legislation intended to defeat tJint right? 
That would be violating j'our own view of the Constitution. Not 
only so, but if you were to do so, how long would it take the courts 
to hold your votes unconstitutional and void? Not a moment. 

CONGRESS AND THE CONSTITUTION. 

Lastly, I would ask: Is not Congress itself under obligation to 
give legislative support to any right that is established under the 
United States Constitution? I repeat the question: Is not Congress 
itself bound to give legislative support to any right that is estab- 
lished in the United States Constitution? A menilKT of Congress 
swears to support the Constitution of the United States; and if he 
sees a right established by that Constitution which needs specific 
legislative protection, can he clear his oath without giving that pro- 
tection? Let me ask 30U why many of us who are opposed to 



L'70 .lONKSIioKo DKUATE, SKPTHMIUOR 15, 1858. 

slaviTv upon priiifiple ^ivt' our ac<iuie8cence to :i Fugitive Slave 
law? Why do we lioKl ounsolves under obligations to pass sueh a 
law, and abide by it when it is passed? Because tbe Constitution 
makes provision that the owners of slaves shall have the right to re- 
claim them. It gives the right to reclaim slaves; anil that right is, 
as Judge Douglas says, a barren right, unless there is legislation 
that will enforce it. 

The mere declaration, " No person held to service or labor in 
one State under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in 
conseiiuence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from 
such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the 
party to whom such service or labor may be due, " is powerless with- 
out specific legislation to enforce it. Now, on what ground would 
a member of Congress who is opposed to slavery in the abstract, 
vote for a Fugitive- Slave law, as I would deem it my duty to do? 
Because there is a constitutional right which needs legislation to en- 
force it. And although it is distasteful to me, I have sworn to 
support the Constitution; and having so sw(jni, I cannot conceive 
that I do support it if I withhold from that right any necessary 
legislation to make it practical. And if that is true in regard to a 
Fugitive- Slave law, is the right to have fugitive slaves reclaimed 
any better fixed in the Constitution than the right to hold slaves in 
the Territories? For this decision is a just exposition of the Con- 
stitution, as Judge Douglas thinks. Is the one right an}' better 
than the other? Is there any man who, while a member of Con- 
gress, would give support to the one any more than the other? 
If I wished to refuse to give legislative support to slave property in 
the Territories, if a member of Congress, I could not do it, holding 
the view that the Constitution establishes that right. If I did it at 
all, it would be because T deny ihat tliis di'cisioii properly I'onstiucs 
the Constitution. 15ut if I acknowledge, with Judge Douglas, 
that this decision properly construes the Constitution, I cannot con- 
ceive that I would be less than a perjured man if I should refuse in 
Congress to give such protection to that property as in its nature it 
needed. 

I.IN("(»I,n's fifth INTKIUUXiATOUV. 

At the end of what I have said here 1 i»ropo.se to give the Judge 
my liftli interrogatory, which he ma}' take and answer at his lei- 
sure. My fifth inti'rrogatory is this: — 

If the slaveholding citizens of a I'niti'd States Territory should 
neeil and demand Congressional legislation for the protection of 



LINCOLN. 271 

their slave property iu such Territory, would you, as a, member of 
Congress, vote for or against such legislation? 

Judge. Douglas. — Will you repeat that? I want to answer that 
(question. 

Mr. Lincoln. — If the slaveholding citizens of a United States 
Territory should need and demand Congressional legislation for the 
protection of their slave property in such Territory, would you, as 
a member of Congress, vote for or against such legislation ? 

I am aware that iu some of the speeches Judge Douglas has 
made he has spoken as if he did not know or think that the Su- 
preme Court had decided that a Tei'ritorial legislature cannot 
exclude slavery. Precisely what the Judge would say upon the sub- 
ject, — whether he would say definitely that he does not understand 
they have so decided, or whether he would say he does understand 
that the court have so decided, — I do not know; but I know that 
in his speech at Springfield he spoke of it as a thing they had not 
decided yet; and in his answer to me at Freeport, he spoke of it, 
so far, again, as I can comprehend it, as a thing that had not yet 
been decided. 

Now, I hold that if the Judge does entertain tliat view, I think 
that he is not mistaken in so far as it can be said that the court has 
not decided anything save the mere question of jurisdiction. I 
know the legal arguments that can be made, — that after a court 
has decided that it cannot take jurisdiction in a case, it then has 
decided all that is before it, and that is the end of it. A plausible 
argument can be made in favor of that proposition; but I know that 
Jadge Douglas has said in one of his speeches that the court went 
forward, like honest men as they were, and decided all the points 
in the case. If any points are really extra-judicially decided be- 
cause not necessarily before them, then this one as to the power ot 
the Territorial legislature to exclude slavery is one of them, as also 
the one that the Missouri Compromise was null and void. They are 
both extra-judicial, or neither is, according as the court held that 
the}' had no jurisdiction in the case between the parties, because of 
want of capacity of one party to maintain a suit in that court. 

I want, if I have sufficient time, to show that the court did pass 
its opinion ; but that is the only thing actually done iu the case. 
If they did not decide, they showed what they were ready to decide 
whenever the matter was before them. What is that opinion? 
After having argued that Congress had no power to pass a law 
excluding slavery from a United States Territory, they then used 



272 .loNESHORC) DEBATE. SEPTEMBEK 15, la'iS. 

lttn»ru;i<re to this etFoc't : That iiiasmucli as Congress itself could not 
exereisi' such ii power, it followed us a matter of course that it could 
net authorize a Territorial government to exercise it; for the Terri- 
torial legislature can do no more than Congress could do. Thus it 
expressed its opinion emphatically against the power of a Tarritorial 
legislature to exclude slavery, leaving us in just as little doubt on 
that point as upon any other point they really decided. 

Now, my fellow-citizens, 1 will iletain you only a little while 
longer: my time is nearly out. 1 lind a report of a speech made hy 
Judge Douglas at Joliet, since we last met at Freeport, — published, 
I Itdicve, in the Missmiri Ripuhlinin, — on the 0th of this 
month, in which Judge Douglas says: — 

'■You know at Ottawa I n-atl this platform, and asked him if he con- 
currt-d ill carlj and all of tlii' principk'S st't forlli in it. He would not 
answer these questions. At la^^l I said frankly, I wish you to answer 
them, because when 1 •;et them iiji ii-re where the color of your principles 
are a little darki-r t!ian in E^'vpt. I intend to trot you down to Jonesboro. 
Tile very notice that I was jroinj.' to take Irim j.lo\vii to Eiry])t made him 
tremble in the knees so that he had to be carried from the platform. He 
laid up seven days, and in the meantime held a consultation with his 
political physicians; they had Lovejoy and Farnsworth and all the lead- 
ers of the Abolition party; they consulted it all over, and at last Lincoln 
came to the conclusion that he would answer; so he came up to Freeport 
last Friday." 

Now, that statement altogether furnishes a subject for philo- 
sophical contemplation. I have been treating it in that way, and I 
have really come to the conclusion that I can explain it in no other 
way than by believing tlie Judge is crazy. If he was in his right 
mind, I cannot conceive how he would have risked disgusting the 
four or five thousand of his own friends who stood there, and knew, 
as to my having been carried from tiie platform, that there was not 
a word of truth in it. 

Judge Dtiitghitt. — Did n't they carry you oil? 

Mr. Llnrntn. — There! that (luestion illustrates the cliaracter of 
this man Douglas exactly. He smiles now, and says, '-Ditlnt they 
carry you off? " But he said then ^^ he hail to he curried off;'' and 
he said it to cfuivince the country that he had so completely broken 
me down l)y his speech that I iiad to lu* carried away. Now he 
seeks to dodge it, jind asks, "Didn't they carry you off?'' Yes, 
they did. Jlnf, Judgi /hmglnx, ir/ii/ ilid n'f i/mi titj t/ie triifJi .' I 
would like to know why you didn't tell the truth al)()ut if. .\nd then 
again, " He laid u|) seven days." lie puts this in print for the 



LINCOLN. 273 

people of the country to read as a serious documeat. I think if he 
had been in his sober senses he would not have risked that bare- 
facedness in the presence of thousands of his own friends, who 
knew that I made speeches within six of the seven da^'s at Henry, 
Marshall County; Augusta, Hancock County; and Macomb, McDon- 
ough County; including all the necessary travel to meet him again 
at Frccport at the end of the six days. Now, T say there is no 
charitable way to look at that statement, except to conclude that 
he is actually crazy. 

There is another thing in that statement that alarmed me very 
greatly as he states it, — that he was going to "trot me down to 
Egypt." Therel)y he would have you to infer that I would not 
come down to Egypt unless he forced me, — that I could not be got 
here, unless he, giant-like, had hauled me down here. That state- 
ment he makes, too, in the teeth of the knowledge that I had made 
the stipulation to come down here, and that lie himself had hcni very 
rthictant to enter into that stipulation. More than all this, Judge 
Douglas, when he made that statement, must have been crazy, and 
wholly out of his sober senses, or else he would have known that 
when he got me down here, that promise — that windy promise — of 
his powers to annihilate me, wouldn't amount to anything. Now, 
how little do I look like being carried away trembling ? Let the 
Judge go on; and after he is done with his half hour, I want you 
all, if I can't go home myself to let me stay and rot here; and if 
anything happens to the Judge, if I cannot carry him to the hotel 
and put him to bed, let me stay here and rot. 

I sa}', then, there is something extraordinary in this state- 
ment. I ask 3'ou if j'ou know any other living man who would 
make such a statement ? I will ask my friend Casey, OA'er there, 
if he would do such a thing ? Would he send that out, and have 
his men take it as the truth ? Did the Judge talk of trotting me 
down to Egypt to scare me to death ? Why, I know this people 
better than he does. I was raised just a little east of here. I am 
a part of this people. But the Judge was raised further north, and 
perhaps he has some horrid idea of what this people might be in- 
duced to do. But really I have talked about this matter perhaps 
longer than I ought, for it is no great thing; and yet the smallest 
are often the most difficult things to deal with. The Judge has set 
about seriously trj'ing to make the impression that when we meet at 
different places I am literally in his clutches — that I am a poor, 
helpless, decrepit mouse, and that I can do nothing at all, This is 
18 



•J7t .H)Ni:si;(»Ki) DKISATE, SEPTEMHER 1.'). ISTiS. 

one of the ways he has taken to create that impression. 1 do n't 
know any other way to meet it, except this. 1 don't want to 
t|uarrel with him, — to call him a liar; but when I come S([Uare up 
to him 1 don't know what else to call him, if 1 must tell the truth 
out. I want to he at peace, and reserve all my li<;hting powers for 
necessary occasions. My time, now, is very nearly out. and I ^ive 
up the tritle that is left to the Judge, to let him .set my knees trem- 
hlinir a'j:ain, if he can. 



MR. )>')r(;LAs's i{i:.i()i.\i)KR. 

M}' friends, while I am very grateful to you for the enthusiasm 
which you show for me, 1 will say in all candor, that your cjuietness 
will lie much more* agreeable than your apidause, inasmuch as you 
deprive me of some part of my time whenever you cheer. 

I will commence where Mr. Lincoln left off, and make a remark 
upKiilliis serious complaint of his about my speech at Joliet. I did 
say there in a playful manner that when I put these (piestions to 
Mr. Lincoln at Ottawa he failed to answer, aud that he trembled 
and had to l)e carried off the stand, and recjuired seven days to get 
up his reply. That he ilid not walk otf from that stand he will not 
deny. That when the crowd went away from the stand with me, a 
few persons carried him lioinc on their shoulders and laid him down 
he will admit. I wish to sa}' to you that whenever I degrade my 
friends and myself l)y allowing them to carry me on their backs 
along through the public streets, when 1 am able to walk, 1 am will- 
ing to be deemed crazy. 

I did not say whether 1 lical him or he beat me in the argument. 
It is true I put these (juestions to him, and I put them, not as mere 
idle (piestions, but show«'d that 1 based them upon the creed 
of the IMack llepublican party as declared by their conventions 
in that poitittu of the State which he depi-nds upon to elect 
him, ami desiii'tl to know whetlu'r he indorsed that creed. lie 
Would not answer. When I rcmindiMl liim thai 1 inti-ntU'd bringing 
him into Kgypt and renewing my (pu'stions if he refusi'd to answer, 
he then constdtecl, and did get up his answers one week after, — 
answers which I m.iy r< It r to in a few niiiiutes. and show you how 
e(piivocul they are. .My object was to make him avow whether or 
not he stood by the platform of hi.s party; the resolutions I then 
read, and upon whii'i I baseil my tpiestions, h.id b<'i'n adopted liy 



DOUGLAS. 275 

his party in the Galena Congressiontil District, and the Chicago 
and Uloomingtou Congressional Districts, composing a large major- 
ity of the counties in -this State that give Republican or Abolition 
majorities. Mr. Lincoln cannot and will not deny that the doctrines 
laid down in these resolutions were in substance put forth in Love- 
joy's resolutions, which were voted for by a majority of his party, 
some of them, if not all, receiving the support of every man of 
his part3^ Hence, I laid a foundation for my questions to him 
before I asked him whether that was or was not the platform of his 
party. 

He says that he answered my questions. One of them was 
whether he would vote to admit any more Slave States into the 
Union. The creed oi the Republican party as set forth in the reso- 
lutions of their various conventions was, that they would under no 
circumstances A'ote to admit another Slave State. It was put forth in 
the Lovejoy resolutions in the Legislature; it was put forth and 
passed in a majority of all the counties of this State which give Abo- 
lition or Republican majorities, or elect members to the Legislature 
of that school of politics. I had a right to know whether he would 
vote for or against the admission of another Slave State, in the 
event the people wanted it. He first answered that he was not 
pledged on the subject, and then said: — 

"In regard to the other question, of whether I am pledged to the ad- 
mission of any more Slave States into the Union, I state to you very frankly 
that I would be e.xceedingly sorry ever tc be put in the position of having 
to pass on that question. I should be exceedingly glad to know that there 
would never be another Slave State admitted into the Union ; but I must 
add that if slavery shall be kept out of the Territories during the Territor- 
ial existence of any one given Territory, and then the people, having a fair 
chance and clean field when they come to adopt a Constitution, do such 
an extraordinary thing as adopt a slave constitution, uninfluenced by the 
actual presence of the institution among them, I see no alternative, if we 
own the country, but to admit them into the Union." 

Now analyze that answer. In the first place, he says he would 
be exceedingly sorry to be put in a position where he would have to 
vote on the question of the admission of a Slave State. Why is he 
a candidate for the Senate if he would be sorry to be put in that 
position? I trust the people of Illinois will not put him in a posi- 
tion which he would be so sorry to occupy. The next position he 
takes is that he would be glad to know that there would never be 
another Slave State, yet, in certain contingencies, he might have to 



L'TC. JoNKSItoliO DEHATE. SKl'I'K.MIJKK i:., isr.s. 

vnlf for t>iu-. What is lliut rontiiigt'iicy ? "If ('<)iigri'!5S koi-ps 
slavery out. by law while it is a Territory, ami tlu'U the people 
should have a fair ehaiiee uiul should adopt slavery, uninlluenecd by 
the presence of the institution," he supposed he would have to 
admit the State. 

Suppose Congress should not keep slavery out during their Terri- 
torial existence, then how would he vote when the people applied 
for admission into the Fnion with a slave constitution? That he 
does not answer; and that is the condition of ever}' Territory we 
have now got. Slavery is not kept out of Kansas by Act of Con- 
gress; and when I put tiie (jueslion to Mr. Jiincoln, whether he will 
vote for the admission with or without slaver}', as her people may 
desire, he will not answer, and you have not* got an answer from 
him. In Xel>raska, slavery is not prohibited by Act of Congress, 
hut the people are allowed, under the Nebraska bill, to do as they 
please on the subject; and when I ask him whether he will vote to 
admit Nebraska with a slave constitution if her people desire it, he 
will not answer. So with New Mexico, Washington Territory, 
Arizona, and the four new States to be admitted from Texas. 

Vou cannot get an answer from him to these questions. His an- 
swer only applies to a given case, to a condition, — things which he 
knows do not exist in any one Territory in the CTnion. lie tries to 
give you to understaml that he would allow the people to do as they 
please, and 3'et he dodges the question as to every Territory in the 
Union. I now ask wh}' cannot Mr. Lincoln answer to each of these 
Territories? He has not done it, and he will not do it. The Aboli- 
tionists up north understand that this answer is made with a view of 
not committing himself on any one Territory now in existence. It is 
so understood there, and you cannot expect an answer from him on a 
case that applies to any oiw Territory, or applies to the new States 
which liy compact we are pleilgcd to admit out of Texas, when they 
have the requisite population and desire admission. I submit to 
you whether he has made a frank answer, so that you can tell how 
he would vote in any one of these cases. " He would l)e sorry to 
Ije put in the position.' Why would he be sorry to be put in this 
position if his duty required him to give the vole? If the people 
of a Ti-rritory ought to be permitteil to come into the Tnion as a 
State, with slavery or without it, as they pleased, why not give the 
vote admitting tliem cheerfully? If in his opinion the}' ought not 
to come in with slavery, even if they wanted to, why not say that 
lie would cheerfully vote against llicir admission? His intimation 



DOUGLAS. 277 

is that conscience would not let him vote "No," and he would be 
sorry to do that which his conscience would compel him to do as 
an honest man. 

In regard to the contract, or bargain, between Trumbull, the 
Abolitionists, and him, which he denies, I wish to say that the 
charge can be proved by notorious historical facts. Trumbull, 
Lovejoy, Giddings, Fred Douglass, Hale, and Banks were travel- 
ing the State at that time making speeches on the same side and 
in the same cause with him. He contents himself with the simple 
denial that no such thing occurred. Does he deny that he, and 
Trumlnill, and Breese, and Giddings, and Chase, and Fred Doug- 
lass, and Lovejoy, and all those Abolitionists and deserters from 
the Democratic party did make speeches all over this State in the 
same common cause? Does he deny that Jim Matheny was then, 
and is now, his confidential friend, and does he deny that Matheny 
made the charge of the bargain and fraud in his own language, as 
I have read it from his printed speech? Matheny spoke of his 
own personal knowledge of that bargain existing between Lincoln, 
Trumbull, and the Abolitionists. He still remains Lincoln's confi- 
dential friend, and is now a candidate for Congress, and is can- 
vassing the Springfield District for Lincoln. I assert that I can 
prove the charge to be true in detail if I can ever get it where I 
can summon and compel the attendance of witnesses. I have the 
statement of another man to the same efi'ect as that made by 
Matheny, which I am not permitted to use yet; but Jim Matheny 
is a good witness on that point, and then the history of the 
country is conclusive upon it. That Lincoln up to that time had 
been a Whig, and then undertook to Abolitionize the Whigs and 
bring them into the Abolition camp, is beyond denial; that Trum- 
bull up to that time had been a Democrat, and deserted, and under- 
took to Abolitionize the Democracy, and take them into the 
Abolition camp, is beyond denial; that they are both now active, 
leading, distinguished members of this Abolition Republican partj' 
in full communion, is a fact that cannot be questioned or denied. 

AS TO CAMPBELL AND MOLONT. 

r 

But Lincoln is not willing to be responsible for the creed of his 
party. He complains because I hold him responsible; and in order 
to avoid the issue, he attempts to show that individuals in the 
Democratic party, many years ago, expressed Abolition sentiments. 
It is true that Tom Campbell, when a candidate for Congress in 



278 JOXESBORO DERATE. SEPTEMBER l"., 1S.^)8. 

1850, published thf letliT wliUli liiiitolii rt-ad. Wluii I asked 
LiiK-oln for tlie date of that letter, he could not ^ive it. The date 
of the letter has been suppressed by other speakers who have used 
it, thou«;h I Uike it for grant^nl that Lincoln did not know the date. 
If lie will take the trouble to examine, he will find that the letter 
was published only two days before the election, and was never 
seen until after it. I'xcept in one county. Tom Campbell would 
have been beat to death by the J)emocratic party if that letter 
liad been made public in his district. As to Molony, it is true he 
uttered sentiments of the kind referred to by Mr. Jiincoln, ami tiie 
best Democrats woulil not vote for him for that reason. 1 re- 
turned from Washington after the passa<ie of the Compromise 
.Measures in 1H50, and when I found Molony runninj^ under Went- 
worth's tutelage and on his platform, I denounced him, and de- 
clared that he was no Democrat. 

In my speech at Chicago, just before the election that year, I 
went before the infuriated people of that city anil vindicated the 
Compromise Measures of 1850. llemember the city council had 
passed resolutions nullifying Acts of Congress and instrutrting the 
police to wiliiiiold tht'ir assistance from the execution of the laws; 
and as I was the only man in the city of Chicago who was respon- 
sible for the passage of the Compn^mise Measures, I went before 
the crowd, justified each and every one of those measures; and let 
it be said, to the eternal honor of the people of Chicago, that when 
they were convinced by my exposition of tho.se measures that they 
were right, and they had done wrong in op})osing them, they re- 
jH-aled their nullifying resolutions, and declared that they would 
acfjuiesce in and support the laws of the land. These facts are 
well known, and Mr. Lincoln can only get up individual instances, 
dating back to 184'.)-'50, which arc c()ntradicte<l by the whole tenor 
of the Democratic creed. 

Hut Mr. Lincoln does not want to be held responsible for the 
lilack Uepublican d<jctrine of no more Slave States. Farusworlh is 
the candidate of his party to-day in the Chicago District, and he 
made a speech in the last Congress in which he called upon (Jod to 
palsy his right arm if he ever voted for the admission of another 
Slave SUite, wheliier the pcoide wanted it or not. Lovejoy is mak- 
ing speeches all over the State for Lincoln now, and taking ground 
against any more Slave States. Wasid)urne, the Black Kepuldican 
candidate for Congress in the Galena District, is making speeches in 
favor of this saine .Mmlition phitfonii declaring no ni<>re Slave 



DOUGLAS. 279 

States. Why are men ruuning for Congress in the northern districts, 
iind taking that Abolition platform for their guide, when Mr. J^incoln 
does not want to I)e held to it down here in Egypt and in the center 
of the State, and objects to it so as to get votes here? Let me 
tell Mr. Lincoln that his party in the northern part of the State 
hold to that Abolition platform, and that if they do not in the south 
and in the center, they present the extraordinary spectacle of a 
"house divided against itself," and hence, "cannot stand." I now 
bring down upon him the vengeance of his own scriptural quotation, 
and give it a more appropriate application than he did, when I say 
to him that his party, Abolition in one end of the State, and op- 
posed to it in the other, is a house divided against itself, and can- 
not stand, and ought not to stand, for it attempts to cheat the 
American people out of their votes by disguising its sentiments. 

Mr. Lincoln attempts to cover up and get over his Abolitionism 
by telling you that he was raised a little east of you, beyond the 
Wabash in Indiana, and he thinks that makes a might}^ sound and 
good man of him on all these questions. I do not know that the 
place where a man is born or raised has much to do with his politi- 
cal principles. The worst Abolitionists I have ever known in 
Illinois have been men who have sold their slaves in Alabama 
and Kentucky, and have come here and turned Abolitionists 
whilst spending the money got for the negroes they sold ; and I 
do not know that an Abolitionist from Indiana or Kentucky ought 
to have any more credit because he was born and raised among 
slaveholders. I do not know that a native of Kentucky is more ex- 
cusable because, raised among slaves, his father and mother having 
owned slaves, he comes to Illinois, turns Abolitionist, and slanders 
the graves of his father and mother, and breathes curses upon the 
institutions under which he was born, and his father and mother 
bred. 

True, I was not born out west here. I was born away down in 
Yankee land, I was born in a valley in Vermont, with the high 
mountains around me. I love the old green mountains and valleys 
of Vermont, where I was born, and where I played in my chiklhood. 
I went up to visit them some seven or eight years ago, for the first 
time for twenty odd years. When I got there they treated me very 
kindly. They invited me to the Commencement of their col- 
lege, placed me on the seats with their distinguished guests, and 
conferred upon me the degree of LL. D, in Latin (doctor of laws), 
— the same as they did Old Hickory, at Cambridge, many years ago; 



2S0 .loNKSHOIlo DEBATE. SEPTEMIiEIl in, 1858. 

:uul I give you iiiy word suul honor I uiulerstooil just as imich of 
the Latin as he did. When they got through conferring the honorary 
degree, they called upon me for a speech; and I got up, with my 
heart full and swelling with gratitude for their kindness, and I said 
to them, "My friends, Vermont is the most glorious spot on the 
face of this globe for a man to be born in, pnirldul he emigrates 
when he is very young. " 

I emigrated when I was very young, I came out here when I 
was a boy, and I found my mintl liberalized, and my opinions en- 
larged, when I got on these broad prairies, with only the heavens to 
bound my vision, instead of having them circumscribed by the lit- 
tle narnjw ridges that surrounded the valley where I was born. But 
I discard all tlings at the land where a man was born. I wish to be 
judged by my principles, by those great public measures and con- 
stitutional principles upon which the peace, the happiness, and the 
perpetuity of this Republic now rest. 

ANSWER TO QUESTION FIVE. 

Mr. Lincoln has framed another question, propounded it to me, 
and ilesired my answer. As I have said before, 1 did not put a 
question to him that I did not first lay a foundation for, by showing 
that it was a part of tlie platform of the party whose votes he is 
now seeking ; adopted in a majority of the counties where he now 
hopes to get a majority ; and supported by the candidates of his 
party now running in those counties. But I will answer his ques- 
tion. It is as follows: "If the slaveholding citizens of a Tnited 
States Territory should need and demand Congressional legislation 
for the protection of their slave property in such Territory, would 
you, as a member of Congress, vote for or against such legisla- 
tion?" I answer him that it is a fundamental article in the 
Democratic creed that there should be non-interference and non-in- 
tervention by Congress with slavery in the States or Territories. 
Mr. Lincoln could have f<Muid an answer to his (piesticn in the 
Cincinnati platform, if he h.id desireil it. Tlic Dcmoeratu" party 
have always stood by that great princii)le of non-interference and 
non-intervention b}' Congress with slavery in the States and Terri- 
tories alike, and 1 stand on that platform now. 

Now, I desire U) call your attention to the fact that Lincoln did 
not define his own position in his own question. IIow does he stand 
on that (juestion? He jiut the cjuestion to me at Freejmrt whether 
or not J would vole to admit l\an^as into the T'nion before she had 



DOUGLAS. 281 

93,420 inhabitants. I answered liim at once that, it iiaving been 
decided that Kansas liad now population enough for a Slave State, 
she had population enough for a Free State. 

I answered the question unequivocal]}'; and then I asked him 
whether he would vote for or against the admission of Kansas be- 
fore she had 93,420 inhabitants, and he would not answer me. To- 
day he has called attention to the fact that, in his opinion, my 
answer on that question was not quite plain enough, and yet he has 
not answered it himself. lie now puts a question in relation to 
Congressional interference in the Territories to me. I answer him 
direct, and yet he has not answered the question himself. I ask 
you whether a man has any right, in common decency, to put ques- 
tions in these public discussions, to his opponent, which he will not 
answer himself, when they are pressed home to him. I have asked 
him three times whether he would vote to admit Kansas whenever 
the people applied with a constitution of their own making and their 
own adoption, under circumstances that were fair, just, and unex- 
ceptionable; but I cannot get an answer from him. Nor will he an- 
sw'er the question which he put to me, and which I have just 
answered in relation to Congressional interference in the Territor- 
ies, by making a slave code there. 

It is true that he goes on to answer the question by arguing that 
under the decision of the Supreme Court it is the duty of a man to 
vote for a slave code in the Territories. He says that it is his duty, 
under the decision that the court has made; and if he believes in 
that decision he would be a perjured man if he did not give the 
vote. I want to know whether he is not bound to a decision which 
is contrary to his opinions just as much as to one in accordance 
with his opinions. If the decision of the Supreme Court, the tri- 
bunal created by the Constitution to decide the question, is final and 
binding, is he not bound by it just as strongly as if he was for it 
instead of against it originally? Is every man in this land allowed 
to resist decisions he does not like, and only support those that 
meet his approval? What are important courts worth, uidess their 
decisions are binding on all good citizens? It is the fundamental 
principle of the judiciary that its decisions are final. It is created 
for that purpose ; so that when you cannot agree among yourselves 
on a disputed point, you appeal to the judicial tribunal, which steps 
in and decides for you ; and that decision is then binding on every 
good citizen. It is the law of the land just as much with Mr. 
Lincoln against it as for it. 



282 JONESBORO DEBATE. SEPTEMBER in. lft-.8. 

Ami yet he s:iys that if that decision is hiiidiii;:, lie is a perjured 
man it" lie iloes not vote f or u slave code in the ililferent Territories of 
this Union. Well, if yon [turning to Mr. LineolnJ are not going to 
resist the deeision ; if you obey it, and do not intend to nrray mob 
law against the constituted authorities; then, aeeording to your own 
statement, you will be ji perjured man if you do not vote U) estab- 
lish shivery in these Territories. My doctrine is, that e\(ii taking 
Mr. Lincoln's view that the decision recognizes the right of a man 
to carry his slaves into the Territories of the United States if he 
pleases, yet after he gets tlieri^ he needs adirmalive law to make 
that right of any value The same doctrine not only api)lies to 
slave property. Iml all other kinils of pro[)erty. (Miief Justice 
Taney places it upon the ground that slave property is on an ecjual 
footing with other property. Suppose one of your merchants 
should move to Kansas and open a licjuor store: he has a right to 
take groceries and liquors there; but the mode of selling them, and 
the circumstances under which tliey shall be sold, and all the 
remedies, must be prescribed by local legislation; and if that is un- 
friendly, it will drive him out just as elTectually as if there was a 
constitution:d provision against the sale of liquor. So the absence 
of local legislation to encourage and support slave property in a 
Territory excludes it practically just as eirectually as if there was a 
positive constitutional provision against it. 

Hence, I assert that under the Dred Scott decision you cannot 
maintain slavery a day in a Territory where there is an unwilling 
people and unfriendl}' legislation. If the people are opposed to it, 
our right is a barren, worthless, useless right; and if they are for 
it, they will support and encourage it. We come right back, there- 
fore, to the practical question. If the people of a Territory want 
slavery, they will have it; and if they do not want it, you cannot 
force it on them. And this is the practical (luestion, the gri-at 
principle, iipoii which our institutions rest. I am willing to take 
the decision of the Supreme Court as it was pronounced by that 
august tribunal, without stopping to iiKpiire whether I would have 
decided that way or not. I have had many a decision made against 
me on questions of law which 1 diil not like, but I wa.s bound by 
them just as much as if I had had a ii.iiid in making them .and a|i- 
provecl them. Did you ever .see a lawyer or a clieiit lose his case 
that he approved the decision of the court? They always think the 
decision unjust when it is given against them. In a goveriunent of 
laws, like ours, we must sustain the ('(institution as our fathers 




p^^^--f^^---2f^ 



^+ffVW. V. 




THK LINCOLN MONUMliNT. 

• oran.im i incoin ■> monumont stdnds on Uat< Hidgo, near Springfield, Illinois. It was 

dedicated October 15, 1874, and Is the work of the sculptor Larkin G. Mead. 

The structure is of white marble with a portrait-statue of Lincoln in bronze. 



LINCOLN. 2S3 

iiiade it, unci maintain the rights of the States as they are guaran- 
ti'cd under the Constitution, and then we will have peace and har- 
mony between the dift'erent States and sections of this glorious 
Union. 



FOURTH JOINT DEBATE, AT CHARLESTON. 

September IS, 1S5S. 

MR. LINCOLN'S SPEECH. 

Ladies axd G-entlemen : It will be very difficult for an audience 
so large as this to hear distinctly what a speaker saj's, and conse- 
quently it is important that as profound silence be preserved as 
possible. 

While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called 
upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a per- 
fect equality between the negroes and white people. While I had 
not proposed to myself on this occasion to sa}' much on that subject, 
yet as the question was asked me, I thought I would occupy perhaps 
five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say, then, 
that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in 
any way the social and political equality of the white and black 
races ; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters 
or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to 
intermarry with white people; and I will say, in addition to this, 
that there is a physical difference between the white and black races 
which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on 
terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they can- 
not so live, while they do remain together there must l)e the position 
of superior and inferior, and I as much as any othei'' man am in 
favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. 

I say upon this occasion: I do not perceive that because the 
white man is to have the superior position the negro should be 
denied everything. I do not understand that because I do not want 
a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. 
My understanding is that I can just let her alone. I am now in my 



284 ClIAItLKSTON DEBATE. SEPTEMBER IS, 1858. 

fiftieth yt'Hf, ami I certainly never have had a l)lai-k woman for 
eitlier a shive or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us to 
get alon<^ without raakin<i: either slaves or wives of negroes. I will 
mill to this that I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, 
woman, or child who was in favor of producing a perfect etjuality, 
social and political, between negroes and white men. I recollect of 
but one distinguished instance that I ever heard of so frequently as 
to be entirely satisfied t)f its correctness, and that is the case of 
Judge Douglas's old friend Colonel Richard 31. Johnson. 

I will also add to the remarks I have made (for I am not going 
to enter at large ui)on this sultjecl), tiiat I have never iiad the least 
appri'lu'iision that I or my friends would marry negroes if there was 
no law to keep tht-ni from it; but as Judge Douglas and his friends 
seem to i)e in great apprehension that they might, if there were no 
law to keep them from it, I give him the most .solemn pledge that I 
will to the very last stand by the law of this State, which forl)ids 
the marr3'ing of white people with negroes. I will add one further 
word, which is this: that I do not understand that there is any 
place where an alteration of the .social and political relations of the 
negro and the white man can be made, except in the State Legisla- 
ture, — not in the Congress of the United States; and as I do not 
really apprehend the approach of any such thing myself, and as 
Judge Douglas seems to be in constant horror that some such 
danger is rapidly approaching, I propose as the best means to pre- 
vent it that the Judge be kept at home, and placed in the Slate 
Legislature to light the measure. I do not propose dwelling longer 
at this time on this suljject, 

TRU-MBCLL'S CII.\R(JK AdAINST DOUGLAS. 

When Judge Trninbull, our other Senator in Congress, returned 
U) Illinois in the month of August, he made a speech at Chicago, in 
which lie made what may be called a cluirgc against Judge Douglas, 
which 1 understand proved to be very oll'ensivi' to him. The Judge 
was at that time out upon one of his spi-aking tours through the 
country, ami when tin- m-ws of it ri'ach('(l liim, as I am inroinu'd, 
he di-nounccd Judge Trumbull in rather harsh terms for having 
said what he did in regard to that matti-r. I was travi-ling at that 
time, and speaking at the same places with Judge Douglas on sub- 
sefpient days; and when I heard f)f what Judge Trumbull had s.iid 
of Douglas, and wliat Dougl.as had said back again, I felt that I 
was in a pcjsition wlicrc I eoul<l not remain entirely silent in regard 



LINCOLN. 285 

to the matter. Consequently, upon two or three occasions I alluded 
to it, and alluded to it in no other wise than to say that in regard to 
the charge brought by Trumbull against Douglas, I jjcrsoudl/^ knew 
nothing, and sought to say nothing about it; that I did personally 
know Judge Trumbull; that I believed him to be a man of veracity; 
that I believed him to be a man of capacity sufficient to know very 
well whether an assertion he was making, as a conclusion drawn 
from a set of facts, was true or false ; and as a conclusion of my 
own from that, I stated it as my belief, if Trumbull should ever be 
called upon, he would prove everything he had said. I said this 
upon two or three occasions. 

Upon a subsequent occasion. Judge Trumbull spoke again before 
an audience at Alton, and upon that occasion not only repeated his 
charge against Douglas, but arrayed the evidence he relied upon to 
substantiate it. This speech was published at length; and subse- 
quently at Jacksonville Judge Douglas alluded to the matter. In 
the course of his speech, and near the close of it, he stated in re- 
gard to myself what I will now read: "Judge Douglas proceeded to 
remark that he should not hereafter occupy his time in refuting 
such charges ma,de by Trumbull, but that Lincoln having indorsed 
the character of Trumbull for veracit}^, he should hold him (Lincoln) 
responsible for the slanders." I have done simply what I have told 
you, to subject me to this invitation to notice the charge. I now 
wish to say that it had not originally been my purpose to discuss 
that matter at all. But inasmuch as it seems to be the wish of Judge 
Douglas to hold me responsible for it, then for once in my life I 
will play General Jackson, and to the just extent I take the 
responsibility. 

I wish to say at the beginning that I will hand to the reporters 
that portion of Judge Trumbull's Alton speech which was devoted 
to this matter, and also that portion of Judge Douglas's speech 
made at Jacksonville in answer to it. I shall thereby furnish the 
I'eaders of this debate with the complete discussion between Trum- 
bull and Douglas. I cannot now read them, for the reason that it 
would take half of my first hour to do so. I can only make some 
comments upon them. Trumbull's charge is in the following words: 
"Now, the charge is, that there was a plot entered into to have a 
Constitution formed for Kansas, and put in force, without giving 
the people an opportunity to vote upon it, and that Mi*. Douglas 
was in the plot." I will state, without quoting further, for all will 
have an opportunity of reading it hereafter, that Judge Trumbull 



28G ( IIAKI.KSTON DKIJATK. ^^EPTEMHER IS. 1858. 

brings forward what lit- regards as siilUck'nt cvulence to substanliatc 
tins charge.' 

It will lie pertriveil Judge Trmnltull shows that Senator Bigler, 
upon the lloor of the Senate, had di-elareil there had been a confer- 
ence among the 8euatoi"s, in which conference it was determined to 
have an Enabling Act passed for the people of Kansas to form a 
ct>nstitntii»n under, ami in this conference it was agreed among them 
that it was best not to have a provision for sul)mitting the constitu- 
tion to a vote of the people after it should be formed. He then 
brings forward evidence to show, and showing, as he deemed, that 
Judge Douglas reported the I/dl back to the Senate with that clause 
stricken out. He then shows that there was a new clause inserted 
into the Iiill, which would in its nature pnvatt a reference of tlu- 
constitution back for a vote of th(! people, — if, indeed, upon a 
mere silence in the law, it could be assumed that tiiey had the 
right to Vote ui)on it These are the general statements that he has 
made. 

Lincoln's uevikw of tiik c.vse. 

I propose to examine tlie points in Judge Douglas's speech in 
which lie attempts to answer that speech of Judge Trumbull's. 
When you come to examine Judge Douglas's speech, 3'ou will lind 
that the lirst {)oint he makes is: "Suppose it were true that there 
was such a change in the bill, and that I struck it out, — is that a 
proof of a plot to force a constitution upon them against their 
will'.''"' His striking out such a provision, if there was such a one 
in the Ijill, he argues, does not establish the proof that it was 
stricken out for the purpose of robbing the people of that right. I 
would say, in the first place, that that would be a most muni/rsf reason 
for it. U is true, as Judge Douglas states, that many Territorial 
bills have passed williont having such a provision in thi in, 1 lic- 
lieve it is true, though 1 am not certain, that in some instances, 
constitutions framed under such bills liave been submitted to a vote 
of the people, with Ihi- law silent upun the subject; but it docs not 
appear that they once had their l''iiiabling .Vets franieil with an 
express provision /(</• submitting the constitution to be framed, to a 
vote of the people, ami then that it was stricken out when Con- 
gress did not mean to alter the ellect of the law. 

Tliat there have been bills which never had the j)rovision in, I 
do not <|ue8tion; but wln-n was that provision taken «)Ut of one that 
it was in? More especially does this evidence tend to prove the 
I Sec TruiubuU'B cpocch at the cloi>i! of tkiri debate. 



LINCOLN. 2S7 

proposition that Trumbull advanced, when we remember that the 
provision was stricken out of the bill almost simultaneously with 
the time that Bigler says there Avas a conference among certain 
senators, and in which it was agreed that a bill should be passed 
leaving that out. Judge Douglas, in answering Trumbull, omits to 
attend to the testimony of Bigler, that there was a meeting in which 
it was agreed they should so frame the bill that there should be no 
submission of the constitution to a vote of the people. The Judge 
does not notice this part of it. If you take this as one piece of 
evidence, and then ascertain that simultaneously Judge Douglas 
struck out a provision that did require it to be submitted, and put 
the two together, I think it wdl make a pretty fair show of proof 
that Judge Douglas did, as Trumbull says, enter into a plot to put 
in force a constitution for Kansas without giving the people any 
opportunity of voting upon it. 

But I must hurry on. The next proposition that Judge Douglas 
puts is this: "But upon examniation it turns out that the Toombs 
bill never did contain a clause requiring the constitution to be sub- 
mitted." This is a mere question of fact, and can be determined 
by evidence. I only want to ask this question: Why did not Judge 
Douglas say that these words were not stricken out of the Toombs 
bill, or this bill from which it is alleged the provision was stricken 
out, — a bill which goes by the name of Toombs, because he origi- 
nally brought it forward? I ask why, if the Judge wanted to make 
a direct issue with Trumbull, did he not take the exact proposition 
Trumbull made in his speech, and say it was not stricken out? 
Trumbull has given the exact words that he says were in the Toombs 
bill, and he alleges that when the bill came back, they were stricken 
out. Judge Douglas does not say that the words which Trumbull 
says were stricken out were not so stricken out; but he says there 
was no provision in the Toombs bill to submit the constitution to a 
vote of the people. 

We see at once that he is merely making an issue upon the 
meaning of the words. He has not undertaken to say that Trum- 
bull tells a lie about these words being stricken out ; but he is really, 
when pushed up to it, only taking an issue upon the meaning of the 
words. Now, then, if there be any issue upon the meaning of the 
words, or if there be upon the question of fact as to whether these 
words were stricken out, I have before me what I suppose to be a 
genuine copy of the Toombs liill, in which it can be shown that the 
words Trumbull says were in it, were, in fact, originally there. If 



288 (HAKi.KsroN i)i:i:atk. si:i'ti;mi:ki: is, la-is. 

lluri' Vii' ally tli.sj)uli' upon llu' fact, T liavf <j;(»t llie doeumcnls lii'ir 
tx> show thi'V wero Ihfie. If tliere be any controversy upon the 
sense of the words, — whether these words which were stricken out 
R'ully constituted a. provision for submitting the matter to u vote of 
the peopU', — as that is a matter of arLiunu'nt, I tiiink T may as well 
use Trumbull's own argument. He says tliat the proposition is in 
these words: — 

"Tliat tlu' following; proiM)sitlons bo and the samo arc lioroby ofTorod to 
the said Convention of llu- i)i'ople of Kansas wlicn formed, for ilieir free 
acceptance or rejection : wliicli, if accepted by tlie ('on\enlion mid nifijhd 
by the pi'oph' at thf fh^rtiiin fur thr (idoptom of tfie ronnfitutioit, sliall be obli- 
gatory uiMin the I'liited Sl.ites and tiie said Htate of Kansas." 

Now, Trnmhull alleges that these last words were stricken out 
of the bill when it came back, and he says this was a provision 
for submitting the constitution to a vote of the people; and his ai\ 
gtiment is this: " Would it have been possilile to ratify the land 
propositions at the election for the adoption of the constitution, un- 
less such an election was to l)e held?" This is Trumbull's argu- 
ment. Now, Judge Douglas does not meet the charge at all, but 
he stands up and says tliere was no such proposition in that bill for 
sid)mitting the constitution, to be framed, to a vote of the people. 
Truml)ull admits that the language is not a direct provision for 
su])mitting it, but it is a provision necessarily implied from another 
provision. lie asks y<' i how it is possible to ratify the land i)ropo- 
sition at the election for the adoption of the constitution, if there 
was no election to l)c h.-ld for the adoption of the constitution. 
And he goes on to sliov; tlKit it is not any less a law because the 
provision is put m that indiri-t t sliape than it would i)e if it was put 
directly. Hut I presunn' I liivcsaid enough to draw attention to 
this point, and I pass it by al.so. 

Another one of the points that Judge Dmiglas niakes upon 
Trumbidl, and at very great length, is, that Trumbull, while the bill 
was pending, said in a speech in the Senate that he sup|)osetl the 
constitution to be made would have to be submitted to the people. 
He asks, if Trumbull thought .so then, what ground is there for 
anyb<»dy thinking otherwise now? Fellow-citizens, this much may 
be 8ai«l in i<'i>ly: That bill h;id been in the hands of a p:irty to which 
Trumbull did not belong. It had been in the hands of the com- 
mittee, at the head of which Judge Douglas stood. Trumbull pi-r- 
haps had a printed copy of the original Toombs liill. I have not 
the evidence on that point, exfcpt a t-nvl of uifcrencf 1 ilr;iw from 



LINCOLN. 289 

the general course of business there. "What alterations, or what 
provisions in the way of altering, were going on in that committee, 
Trumbull had no means of knowing, until the altered bill was re- 
ported back. Soon afterward, when it was reported back, there 
was a discussion over it, and perhaps Trumbull in reading it hastily 
in the altered form did not perceive all the bearings of the altera- 
tions, lie was hastily borne into the debate, and it does not follow 
that because there was something in it Trumbull did not perceive, 
that something did not exist. More than this, is it true that what 
Trumbull did can have any effect on what Douglas did? Suppose 
Trumbull had been in the plot with these other men, would that let 
Douglas out of it? Would it exonerate Douglas that Trumbull 
did n"t then perceive that he was in the plot? 

He also asks the question: Why didn't Trumbull propose to 
amend the bill, if he thought it needed any amendment? Why, I 
believe that everything Judge Trumbull had proposed, particularly 
in connection with this question of Kansas and Nebraska, since he 
had been on the floor of the Senate, had been promptly voted down 
by Judge Douglas and his friends. He had no promise that an 
amendment offered by him to anything on this subject would re- 
ceive the slightest consideration. Judge Trumbull did bring to the 
notice of the Senate at that time the fact that there was no pro- 
vision for submitting the constitution about to be made for the 
people of Kansas, to a vote of the people. I believe I may venture 
to say that Judge Douglas made some reply to this speech of Judge 
Trumbull's, hut he never noticed thcit j^art of it at all. And so the 
thing passed by. I think, then, the fact that Judge Trumbull 
offered no amendment, does not throw much blame upon him ; and 
if it did, it does not reach the question of fact as to what Judge 
Douglas teas doing. I repeat, that if Trumbull had himself been in 
the plot, it would not at all relieve the others who were in it from 
blame. If I should be indicted for murder, and upon the trial it 
should be discovered that I had been implicated in that murder, but 
that the prosecuting witness was guilty too, that would not at all 
touch the question of my crime. It would be no relief to my neck 
that they discovered this other man who charged the crime upon 
me, to be guilty too. 

Another one of the points Judge Douglas makes upon Judge 
Trumbull is, that when he spoke in Chicago he made his charge to 
rest upon the fact that the bill had the provision in it for submit- 
ting the constitution to a vote of the people when it went into his 
19 



li'jO fllAKLESToN DEliATK. ^Kl'TEMlUMl IS, laW. 

(Jiulj;o Dou«:;lass) bands, that it was missing when lie repoiteil it 
to the J^enate, ami that in a public speech he had subsequently said 
the alterations in the bill were made while it was in committee, and 
that they were made in consultation between him (Judge Douglas) 
and Toombs. And Judge Douglas goes on to comment upon the 
fact of 'rrumbuH's adiUu-ing in his Alton si)eech the proposition 
that til*' l>ill not only came back with that proi>osition stricken out, 
but with another clause and another provision in it, saying that 
•• until tile complete execution of this Act there shall be no election 
in saiil Territory," — which, Trumbull argued, was not only taking 
the provision for submitting to a vote of the people, out of the bill, 
but was adding an affirmative one, in that it prevented the people 
from exercising the right under a bill that was merely silent on the 
question. 

Now, in regard to what he says, that Trumbull shifts the issue, 
that he shifts his ground, — and I believe be uses the term that, 
'' it being i)roven false, he has changed ground," — I call ui)on all 
of you, when you come to examine that portion of Trumbull's 
speech (for it will make a part of mine), to examine whether Trum- 
bull has shifted bis ground or not. I say be did not shift his 
grouud, but that be brought forward bis original charge and the 
evidence to sustain it yet more fully, l)ut precisely as he originally 
made it. Then, in addition thereto, be brought in a new piece of 
evidence. He shifted no ground. He brought no new piece of 
evidence inconsistent with his former testimony; but he brought a 
new piece, tending, as be thought, and as I think, to prove his 
proposition. To illustrate: A man brings an accusation against 
another, and on trial the man making the charge introduces A and 
B to prove the accusation. At a second trial lu' introduces the 
same witnesses, who tell the same stor}- as before, and a third wit- 
ness, who tells the same thing, and in addition gives further testi- 
mony corroltorative (»f the charge. So with Trumbull. There was 
no shifting of ground, nor inconsistency of testimony between the 
new piece of evidence and what he originally introduced. 

But Judge D<niglas says that he himself moveil to strike out 
that last provision of the bill, and that on his motion it was stricken 
out and a substitute inserted. That I presume is the truth. T 
presume it is true tliat that last proposition was stricken out by 
Judge Douglas. Trumltull has not said it was not. TruMil)uil has 
himself said that it was so stricken out. H«' says: " I am speaking 
oi the bill as Jud,'e Douglas reporlid it back. It was ametuleci 



LINCOLN. 291 

somewhat in the Senate before it passed, but I am speaking of it as 
he brought it back. " Now, when Judge Doughis parades the fact 
that the provision was stricken out of the bill when it came back, 
he asserts nothing contrary to wliat Trumbull alleges. Truml)ull 
has only said that he originally put it in, — not that he did not 
strike it out. Trumbull says it was not in the bill when it went to 
the committee. When it came back it was in, and Judge Douglas 
said the alterations were made by him in consultation with Toombs. 
Trumbull alleges, therefore, as his conclusion, that Judge Douglas 
put it in. 

Then, if Douglas wants to contradict Trumbull and call him a 
liar, let him say he did not put it in, and not that he did n't take it 
out again. It is said that a bear is sometimes hard enouj:;h pushed 
to drop a cub; and so I presume it was in this case. I presume 
the truth is that Douglas put it in, and afterward took it out. That 
I take it, is the truth about it. Judge Trumbull says one thing, 
Douglas says another thing, and the two do n't contradict one an- 
other at all. The question is. What did be put it in for? In the 
llrst place, what did he take the other provision out of the bill for, — 
the provi-sion which Trumbull argued was necessary for submitting 
the constitution to a vote of the people? What did he take that 
out for; and, having taken it out, what did he put this in for? I 
say that in the run of things, it is not unlikely forces conspired to 
render it vastly expedient for Judge Douglas to take that latter 
clause out again. The question that Trumbull has made is that 
Judge Douglas put it in; and he don't meet Trumbull at all unless 
he denies that. 

WAS IT FORGED ? 

In the clause of Judge Douglas's speech upon this subject he 
uses this language toward Judge Trumbull. He says: "He forges 
his evidence from beginning to end; and by falsifying the record, 
he endeavors to bolster up his false charge." Well, that is a 
pretty serious statement. Trumbull " forges his evidence from be- 
ginning to end." Now, upon my own authority I say that it is not 
true. What is a forgery? Consider the evidence that Trumbull 
has brought forward. When you come to read the speech, as 30U 
will be able to, examine whether the evidence is a forgery from be- 
ginning to end. He had the bill or document in his hand like that 
[holding up a paper]. He says that is a copy of the Toombs bill, 
— the amendment offered by Toombs. He says that is a copy of 
the bill as it was introduced and went into Judge Douglass hands. 



2;il' ClIARI.KSToN DHIiATE. SEPTEMBER 18, 1858. 

Now, does Judj^f Douf^las say tliat is for<;t'iy? That is one thing 
Trunihull hroiijiht forwanl. Jiul«;e Douj^his says hv forged it from 
beginning to end! That is the "beginning" we will say. Does 
Douglas say that is a forgery? Let him say it to-day, and we will 
have a subse(|ueiil examination upon this subject. Truml)ull then 
holds up another doeument like this, and says tiiat is an exact copy 
of the bill as it came back in the amended form out of Judge 
Douglas's hands. Does Judge Douglas say that that is a forgery? 
Does he say it in his general sweeping charge? Does he say so 
now? If he does not. then take this Toombs bill and the bill in 
the amended form, and it only needs to compare them to see the 
provision is in the cue and not in the other; it leaves the inference 
inevitable that it was taken out. 

But while 1 am dealing with this question, let us see what 
Trumbull's other evidence is. One other piece of evidence I will 
read. Trumbull says there are in this origiiuil Toombs bill the.se 
words: "That the following propositions be, and the same are 
hereb}' offered to the said Convention of the people of Kansas, when 
formed, for their 'free acceptance or rejection; which, if accepted by 
the Convention and ratified by the peojiie at the election for the 
adoption of the constitution, shall be obligatory upon the Tnited 
Slates and the said State of Kansas." Now, if it is said that this 
is a forgery, we will open the paper here and see whether it is or not. 
Again, Trumbull says, as he goes along, that Mr. Bigler made the 
following statement in his place in the Senate, Dec. 9, 1857: — 

" I was present when thai subject was discu.ssrd by senators befure (lie 
bill was introduced, and the question was raised and discussed, wlielher 
tlie constitution, wiien formed, should be submitted to a vote of tin? peo- 
ple. It was held by those most intelligent on the subject that in view of 
all the difllcultles surrounding that Territory, the danjrer of any experi- 
ment at that time of a ivjjudar vote, it would be better there should be no 
such provision in the Toombs liill ; and it was my understanding, in all 
the intercourse I had. that the Convention would make a constitution, and 
send it here, witliout submitting it to the j)opulur vote." 

Tlien Trumbull follows on: — 

■■ In spfakin;; of this mectiiif,' a;.'ain on the 21st of DecembiT, 1857 [Con- 
i/rijinioniil (jliibi-, .same vol., page ll.'Jj, Senator Higler said: — 

"Nothing wus further from mv mind than to allude to any .social or 
coriflderiiial,iiili'rvi( \v. The meeting was not of that character. Inth^ed, 
it was Kenii-<inicial, and called to promote the pid)lic good. My recollec- 
tion was clear that ! left the conference under the impression that it had 
liiiii <j:MTn<-d best to adopt nieasures to )i<lnni Knu.sas as a State throuijh 



LINCOLN. 293 

the agency of one popular election, and that for delef^ates to tliis Conven- 
tion. This impression was stronger because I thouglit the spirit of the bill 
infringed upon the doctrine of non-intervention, to which I had great aver- 
sion; but with the hope of accomplishing a great good, and as no move- 
ment had been made in that direction in the Territory, I waived this 
objection, and concluded to support the measure. I have a few it(?rris of 
testimony as to the correctness of these impressions, and witli their .sub- 
mission I shall be content. I have before me the bill reported by the 
senator from Illinois on the 7th of March, 185G, providing for the admis- 
sion of Kansas as a State, the third section of which reads as follows : — 

"'"That the following propositions be, and the same are hereby 
offered to the said Convention of the people of Kansas, when formed, for 
their free acceptance or rejection ; which, if accepted by the Convention 
and ratified by the people at the election for the adoption of the Constitu- 
tion, shall be obligatory upon the United States aiid the said State of 
Kansas." 

" ' The bill read in his place by the senator from Georgia on the 25th of 
June, and referred to the Committee on Territories, contained the same 
section word for word. Both these bills were under consideration at the 
conference referred to; but, sir, when the senator from Illinois reported 
the Toombs bill to the Senate with amendments, the next morning, it did 
not contain that portion of the third section which indicated to the Con- 
vention that the Constitution sliould be approved by the people. The 
words, " and ratified bi/ t It e people at the election for the adoption of the consti- 
tution," had been stricken out.' " 

Now, these things Trumbull says were stated by Bigler upon the 
floor of the Senate on certain days, and that they are recorded in 
the Congressional Glohe on certain pages. Does Judge Doughis say 
this is a forgery? Does lie say there is no such tlnng in the Con- 
gressional Glohe? What does he mean when he sa3^s Judge Trum- 
bull forges his evidence from beginning to end? So again he saj-s 
in another place, that Judge Doughis, in his speech, Dec. 9, 1857 
{Congressional Glohe, part 1, page 15), stated: — 

"That during the last session of Congress I [Mr. Dougli^s] reported 
a bill from the Committee on Territories, to authorize the people of 
Kansas to assemble and form a constitution for themselves. Subsequently 
the senator from Georgia [Mr. Toombs] brought forward a substitute for 
my bill, which, after having been modified by him and rm/selfin consultation, 
was passed b}' the Senate." 

Now, Trumbull says this is a quotation from a speech of Doug- 
las, and is recorded in the Congressional Globe. Is it a forgery ? 
Is it there or not ? It ma}' not be there, but I want the Judge to 
take these pieces of evidence, and distinctly say they are forgeries 
if he dare do it. 



liiU CHARLESTON DEBATE, SEPTEMBER 18, 1858. 

.1 ToiV,. He will. 

.)//•. Lincoln. — Well, sir, you luitl hi-ttiT not cominil him. Hi- 
j;ivt's other quoUitions, — anotluT from Jud^i' Douglas. He 
says : — 

■■ I will ask the siiiator to show nn- an intimation, from any om- mtinbiT 
of tin- Senuto, in the whoh' tlobati' on tin- Toombs bill, and in tin* Union, 
from any (juarttT, that thi' constitution was not to bf submitted to the pco- 
|»k'. I will vcntiin' to say that on all sidfs of the chambf-r it was so undt-r- 
stixid at the timi'. If the oi)i)ont'nts of tlu' bill had understood it was not, 
they would have made the jHiint on it; and if they had made it, we should 
certainly have yielded to it, and put in the clause. That is a discovery 
made -since the President found out that it whs not safe to take it for 
granted that that would be done, which ou^ht in fairness to have been 
done." 

Judge Trumbull says Douglas made that speech, and it is re- 
corded. Does Judije Douglas say it is a forgery, and was not true? 
Trumbull says somewhere, and I propose to skip it, but it will be 
found l)y any one who will read this debate, that he did distinctly 
bring it t<^> the notice of those who were engineering the bill, that it 
lacked that jjrovision ; and then he goes on to give another (juo- 
tation from Judge Douglas, where Judge Trumlmll uses tills 
language : — 

".Fudge Douglas, however, on the same day and in the same debate, 
probably recollecting or being reminded of the fact that I had objected to 
the Toombs bill when pending, that it did not jjrovide for a submission of 
the constitution to the people, made another statement which is to be 
found in the same volume of the Olobc, page 22, in which he says: — 

" ■ That the bill was silent on this subject was true, and my attention 
was called to that al)out the time it was passed ; and I took tlu' fair con- 
struction to be, that powers not deleg.ited, were reserved, and that of 
course the constitution would be submitted to the people.' 

'• Whether this statement is consistent with the statement just before 
made, that had the point been madi'it would have bi-en yieldid to, or tli.it 
it was a new discovery, you will <lelermine." 

So I say. I do not know whether -ludgt- Douglas will dispute 
this, and yet maintain his position that Trumbulls evideiu-e "was 
forged from l)eginning to end. ' 1 will remark that I have not got 
tln'.se Cnii'/nssiiiiiii/ (I'fiihis with nie. Tlu'V ari' large books, and dilli- 
ciill to carry about, and if .Judge Douglas shall say that on these 
points where Trumbull has (|Uol('d from them there are no such pas- 
sages there. I shall not be :ible to prove they are there upon this oc- 
casion, but I will have another cliauce Whenever he points out the 



LINCOLN. 295 

forgery and says, "I declare that this particular thing which Trum- 
bull has uttered is not to be found where he says it is," then my 
attention will be drawn to that, and I will arm myself for the con- 
test, — stating now that I have not the slightest doubt on earth that 
I will find every quotation just where Trumbull says it is. 

Then the question is, How can Douglas call that a forgery? 
How can he make out that it is a forgery ? What is a forgery ? It 
is the bringing forward something in writing or in print purporting 
to be of certain ell'ect when it is altogether untrue. If you come 
forward with my note for one hundred dollars when I have never 
given such a note, there is a forgery. If you come forward with a 
letter purporting to be written by me which I never wrote, there is 
another forgery. If you produce anything in writing or in print 
saying it is so and so, the document not being genuine, a forgery 
has been committed. How do you make this a forgery when every 
piece of the evidence is genuine ? If Judge Douglas does sa}' these 
documents and quotations are false and forged, he has a full right 
to do so; but until he does it specifically, we don't know how to get 
at him. If he does say they are false and forged, I will then look 
further into it, and I presume I can procure the certificates of the 
proper officers that they are genuine copies. I have no doultt 
each of these extracts will be found exactl}^ where Trumbull says 
it is. 

Then I leave it to you if Judge Douglas, in making his sweeping 
charge that Judge Trumbull's evidence is forged from beginning to 
end, at all meets the case, — if that is the way to get at the facts. 
I repeat again, if he will point out which one is a forgery, I will 
carefully examine it, and if it proves that any one of them is really 
a forgery, it will not be me who will hold to it any longer. I have 
always wanted to deal with every one I meet, candidly and honestly. 
If I have made any assertion not warranted by facts, and it is 
pointed out to me, I will withdraw it cheerfully. But I do not 
choose to see Judge Trumbull calumniated, and the evidence he has 
brought forward brantled in general terms, ' ' a forgery from begin- 
ning to end." This is not the legal way of meeting a charge, and I 
submit to all intelligent persons, both friends of Judge Douglas and 
of myself, whether it is. 

The point upon Judge Douglas is this. The bill that went into 
his hands had the provision in it for a submission of the constitu- 
tion to the people; and I say its language amounts to an express 
provision for a submission, and that he took the provision out. He 



290 CHARLESTON DKl^ATE. SEPTEMBER 18, 1858. 

savs it was known tli;it the hill was sik-nt in this pnrlicular; hut I 

SOI/, Juihjr DotujlfiSj t't lidS not xilmt ultm ytm ynt it. It WaS 

vocal with the (U'claration, wht-n you got it, for a submission of the 
constitution to the people. And now, my direct question to Judge 
Douglas is, to answer why, if he deemed the bill silent on this point, 
he found it necessary to strike out those particular harmless words. 
If he had found the bill silent and without this provision, he might 
say what he does now. If he supposes it Avas implied that the con- 
stitution would I)e submitted to a vote of the people, how could 
these two lines so encumber the statute as to make it necessary to 
strike them out ? IIow could he infer that a submission was still 
implied, after its express provision had been striken from the l)ill ? 
I find the bill vocal with the provision, while he silenced it. He 
took it out, and although he took out the other provision preventing 
a submission to a vote of the people, I ask, W7ij/ did you first ])ut it 
ill/ I ask him whether he took tl'.e original provision out, which 
Trumbull alleges was in the bill ? If he admits that he did take 
it, I (isk him. iihnt he did it for? It looks to US as if he had altered 
the bill. If it looks ditlerently to him, — if he has a different rea- 
son for his action than the one we assign him — he can tell it. I 
insist upon knowing why he made the bill silent upon that point 
when it was vocal before he put his hands upon it. 

I was told, before my last paragraph, that my time was within 
three minutes of l)eing out. I presume it is expired now; I there- 
fore close. 



SENATOR DOUGLAS'S REPLY. 

Ladies and Gentlemen: I had supposed that we assembled 
here to-day for the purpose of a joint discussion l)etween Mr. Lincoln 
and my.self upon the political questions that now agitate the whole 
country. The rule of such discussions is, that the opening speaker 
shall touch upon all the points he intends to discuss, in order that 
his opponent, in reply, shall have the opportunity of answering 
them. Let me ask you what questions of public policy, relating to 
the welfare of this State or the Union, has Mr. Lincoln discus.sed 
before yo«i? Mr. Lincoln simplv contented himself at the outset 
by saying that he was not in favor of social and political equality 
between the wliit<' man and the negro, and <lid not desire the law so 



DOUGLAS. 597 

changed as to make the latter voters or eligible to ofnoe. I am 
glad that I have at last succeeded in getting an answer out of him 
upon this question of negro citizensliip and eligibility to office, for 
I have been trying to bring him to the point on it ever since this 
canvass commenced. 

I will now call your attention to the question which Mr. Lincoln 
lias occupied his entire time in discussing. He spent his whole 
hour in retailing a charge made by Senator Trumbull against me. 
The circumstances out of which that charge was manufactured oc- 
curred prior to the last Presidential election, over two years ago. 
If the charge was true, why did not Trumbull make it in 1856, 
when I was discussing the questions of that day all over this State 
with Lincoln and him, and when it was pertinent to the then issue ? 
He was then as silent as the grave on the subject. If that charge 
was true, the time to have brought it forward was the canvass of 
1856 the year when the Toombs bill passed the Senate. When the 
facts were fresh in the public mind, when the Kansas question was 
the paramount question of the day, and when such a charge would 
have had a material bearing on the election, why did he and Lincoln 
remain silent then, knowing that such a charge could be made 
and proven if true? Were they not false to you and false to the 
country in going through that entire campaign, concealing their 
knowledge of this enormous conspiracy which, Mr. Trumbull says, 
he then knew and would not tell? 

Mr. Lincoln intimates, in his speech, a good reason why Mr. 
Trumbull would not tell, for he says that it might be true, as I 
proved that it was at Jacksonville, that Trumbull was also in the plot, 
yet that the fact of Trumbull's being in the plot would not in any 
way relieve me. He illustrates this argument by supposing himself 
on trial for murder, and says that it would be no extenuating circum- 
stance if, on his trial, another man was found to be a party to his 
crime. Well, if Trumbull was in the plot, and concealed it in 
order to escape the odium which would have fallen upon himself, I 
ask you whether you can believe him now, when he turns State's 
evidence, and avows his own infamy in order to implicate me. I 
am amazed that Mr. Lincoln should now come forward and indorse 
that charge, occupying his whole hour in reading Mr. Trumbuirs 
speech in support of it. Why, I ask, does not Mr. Lincoln make a 
speech of his own instead of taking up his time reading Trumbull's 
speech at Alton? I supposed that Mr. Lincoln was capable of 
making a public speech on his own account, or I should not have 



298 (HARLESTON DEBATE, SEPTEMBER 18, 1858. 

acceptetl llif l)aiiUM- rroiu him for a joint iliscussion. [ Voices: " How 
about till' charLics'.'* J Do not trouble yourselves, I aiu },coin<f U) make 
luy speech in my owu way, and 1 trust, as the Democrats listened 
patiently and respectfully to Mr. Lincoln, that his friends will not 
interrui)t me when I am answering him. 

When Mr. Trumbull returned from the East, the first thing he 
did when he landed at Chicago was to make a speech wholly de- 
voted to assaults upon my public character and public action. 
Up to that time I had never alluded to his course in Congress, 
or to him directl}' or indirectly, and hence his assaults upon me 
were entirely without provocation and without excuse. Since then 
he lias been traveling from one end of the State to the other, re- 
peating his vile charge. I propose now to read it in his own lan- 
guage: — 

"Nuw, fcUiiw-citi/.ons, 1 mako the distinct char^t- tlial tlifi-L' was u pre- 
coiiciTted arriinj^fmeiil and plot entered into by the very men who now 
claim credit for opposing u constitution formed and put in force without 
friving the people any op|XJrtunity to pass upon it. This, my friends, is a 
serious charfre, but I charge it to-night that the very men who traverse the 
country under banners proclaiming popular sovereignty, by design con- 
cocti'd a bill on jmrpose to force a constitution upon th.it pi-uple.'' 

In :inswer to some one in the crowd who asked him a (piestion, 
Trumbull .said: — 

"And you want to satisfy yourself tiiat he was in the plot to force a 
constitution upon that people? I will s.itisfy yon. I will cram the truth 
down any iiont'st man's throat until he cannot deny it. And to tiie man 
who d(jes deny it, I will cram tin- lie down his throat until he shall cry 
enoTigh. 

'•It is pre[)osterous; it is the most damnabh- elFrontery that man ever 
put on, to conceal a sch(!me to defraud and cheat the people out of their 
rights, an<i tin n claim credit for it." 

That is the polite language Senator Trumbull api)lic(l to mo, his 
colleague, when 1 was two hundred miles oil. Why diil he not 
speak out as boldly in the Senate of the United States, and cram 
the lie down my throat when I denied the charge, lirst made by 
Higler, and made him take it back? You all recollect how JJigler 
a.ssaulted me when I was engaged in a hand to-hand fight, resisting 
a Hclieme to force a constitution on the people of Kansas against 
their will. He then attacked me with this charge; but I proved 
its utter falsity, nailed the slander to liie countA^T, and made him 
lake the back track. There is not an lionest man in Ainerii'a who 



DOUGLAS. 299 

read tluit debute who will pretend that the charge is true. Trumbull 
was then |)resent in the Senate, face to face to me; and why did he 
not then rise and repeat the cliaige, and say he would cram the 
lie down my throat? I tell you that Trumbull then knew it was a 
lie. He knew that Toombs denied that there CA-er was a clause in 
the l)ill he brought forward, calling for and requiring a submission 
of the Kansas Constitution to the people. 

Douglas's statement of the case. 

I will tell you what the facts of the case were. I introduced a 
bill to authorize the people of Kansas to form a constitution, and 
come into the Union as a State, whenever they should have the re- 
quisite population for a member of Congress, and Mr. Toombs pro- 
posed a substitute, authorizing the people of Kansas, with their 
then population of only 25,000, to form a constitution, and come 
in at once. The question at issue was, whether we would admit Kan- 
sas with a population of 25,000, or, make her wait until she had 
the ratio entitling her to a representative in Congress, which was 
93,420. That was the point of dispute in the Committee of Terri- 
tories, to which both m}' bill and Mr. Toombs's substitute had been 
referred. I was overruled by a majority of the committee, my 
proposition rejected, and Mr. Toombs's proposition to admit Kansas 
then, with her population of 25,000, adopted. Accordingly, a bill 
to carry out his idea of immediate admission was reported as a 
substitute for mine; the only points at issue being, as I have al- 
ready said, the question of population, and the adoption of safe- 
guards against frauds at the election. 

Trumbull knew this, — the whole Senate knew it, — and hence 
he was silent at that time. He waited until I became engaged in 
this canvass, and finding that I was showing up Lincoln's Abolition- 
ism and negro equalit}' doctrines, that I was driving Lincoln to the 
wall, and white men would not support his rank Abolitionism, he 
came back from the East and trumped up a system of charges 
against me, hoping that I would be compelled to occupy my entire 
time in defending myself, so that I would not be able to show up 
the enormity of the principles of the Abolitionists. Now, the only 
reason, and the true reason, why Mr. Lincoln has occupied the 
whole of his first hour in this issue between Trumbull and mvself, is, 
to conceal from this vast audience the real questions which divide the 
two great parties. 

I am not going to allow them to waste much of my time with 



300 CHARLESTON DEBATE. SEPTEMBER 18. 1858. 

these personal maltiTs. I havi- lived in this State twenty-five 3-ears, 
most of that time Lave been in public lif«', and my reeonl is open 
to you all. I' that reeonl is not enough to vindicate me from these 
jx'tty, malicious a.ssaults, I despise ever to lie elected to olllce by 
slandering my opponents and traducing other men. ^Ir. Lincoln 
a^'ks you to eleet him to the United States Senate to-day solel}' be- 
cause he and Truniludl can slander me. lias he given any other 
reason? lias he avowed what he was desirous to do in Congress on 
any one question? He desires to ride into olllce, n<jt upon his own 
merits, not upon the merits and soundness of his principles ; but 
upon his success in fastening a stale old slander upon me. 

I wish you to bear in mind that up to the time of the introduc- 
tion of the Toombs bill, and after its introduction, there bad never 
been an Act of Congress for the admission of a new State which 
eontained a clause re(piiring its constitution to be submitted to the 
people. The general rule made the law silent on the subject, taking 
it for granted that the people would demand and compel a popular 
vote on the ratification of their constitution. Such was the general 
rule under Washington, JefTerson, Madison, Jackson, and Polk, 
under the Whig Presiilents and the Democratic Presidents, from the. 
beginning of the Government down, and nolwdy dreamed that an 
ctTort would ever be made to abuse the power thus confided to the 
people of a Territory. For this reason our attention was not called 
to the fact of whether there was or was not a clause in the Toombs 
l)iU compelling 8ul)raission, but it was taken for granted that the 
constitution would be submitted to the people whether the law com- 
pelled it or not. 

Xow, I will read from the report by me us Chairman of the 
Committee on Territories at the time I reported back the Toombs 
sul)stitute to the Senate. It contained several things which I had 
voted against in committee, but had been overruled by a majority 
of the members, and it was my duty as Chairman of the Committee 
to report the bill back as it was agreed ujjon by them. The main 
point upon which T had l)een overruled was the (pieslion of popula- 
tion. In my report accompanying the Toombs bill, 1 said : — 

"In tho opinion of your Committee, wlienover a coiislilution sliall ho 
formed In any Territory, preparatory to its iidmission into tin.' Union as a 
Stale justice, tin; p'niiis ol our institutions, tlic? whole liieory of our re- 
publican system, imjjiratively demaihl that the vo\( e of the peo|)le sliall 
be fairly e.xpressed, and th<ir will embodied in tliat fuiiilaniental law, 
without frau<l, or violence, or iiitimid:il ion, or any olluT improiHP or iiii- 



DOUGLAS. 301 

lawful influence, and subject to no other restrictions tlian those imposed 
by the Constitution of the United States." 

There 3'ou find that we took it for granted that the constitution 
was to be submitted to the people, whether the bill was silent on the 
subject or not. Suppose I had reported it so, following the example 
of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Adams, Jack- 
son, Van Buren, Harrison, T3'ler, Polk, Tajior, Fiiltnore, and 
Pierce, would that fact have been evidence of a conspiracy to force 
a constitution upon the people of Kansas against their will? If the 
charge which Mr. Lincoln makes be true against me, it is true 
against Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore, and ever}' Whig Presi- 
dent, as well as ever}' Democratic President, and against Henry 
Clay, who, in the Senate or House, for forty years advocated bills 
similar to the one I reported, no one of them containing a clause 
compelling the submission of the constitution to the people. Are 
Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Trumbull prepared to charge upon all those 
eminent men from the beginning of the Government down to the 
present day, that the absence of a provision compelling submission, 
in the various bills passed by them, authorizing the people of 
Territories to form State constitutions, is evidence of a corrupt 
design on their part to force a constitution upon an unwilling 
people? 

I ask you to reflect on these things, for I tell you that there is 
a conspiracy to carry this election for the Black Republicans by 
slander, and not by fair means. Mr. Lincoln's speech this day is 
conclusive evidence of the fact. He has devoted his entire time to 
an issue between Mr. Trumbull and myself, and has not uttered a 
word about the politics of the day. Are you going to elect Mr. 
TrumbuUs colleague upon an issue between Mr. Trumbull and me? 
1 thought I was running against Abraham Lincoln, that he claimed 
to be my opponent, had challenged me to a discussion of the public 
questions of the day with him, and was discussing these questions 
with me; but it turns out that his only hope is to ride into office on 
Trumbull s back, who will carry him by falsehood. 

Permit me to pursue this subject a little further. An examina- 
tion of the record proves that Trumbull's charge — that the Toombs 
bill originally contained a clause requiring the constitution to be 
submitted to the people — is fahr. The printed copy of the bill 
which Mr. Lincoln held up before you, and which he pretends con- 
t ihis such a clause, merely contains a clause requiring a submission 
of the land grant, and there is no clause in it requirintja submission of 



302 ( IIAUI.KS'ION DKliATK. SKPTEMBER 18, 1858. 

tin constitittion. Mr. Linculii fainiut liiul such :i clausi- in il. My 
ivport shows that we took it for graute'il that the people would 
require a sul)missioa of the constitutiou, and secure it for them- 
selves. There uever was a clause in the Toombs bill recjuiring the 
(•ou.><tituti4)M to be subiintted; Truin))ull knew it at the time, and hi.s 
."Speech made on the night of its pa.ssage discloses the fact that he 
kiH \v it was silent on the subject. 

Liiu'idn preti'uds. and tells you, that Trumi)ull lia.s not changed 
bis evidence in support of his charge since he made his speech in 
Chicago. Let us see. The Chicago Times took up Trumbull s 
Chicago speech, compared it with the official records of Congress. 
and proved that speech to be false in its charge that the original 
T»)(>mlis hill retpiired a submission of the constitution to the people. 
Trumbull then saw that he was caught, and his falsehood exposed, 
and be went to Alton, and, under the very walls of the penitentiary, 
made a new speech, in which he predicated his assault upon me in 
the allegation that I had caused to be voted into the Toombs bill a 
clause which prohibited the Convention from submitting the consti- 
tution to the i)c()i)le, and quoted what be pretended was the clause. 
N(jw, has not Mr. Truml)ull entirely changed the evidence on which 
he ba.ses his charge? The clause which he quoted in his Alton speech 
(which he has pul)lished and circulated broadcast over the l^tate) as 
having I)een put into the Toombs bill by me, is in the following 
words: "And until the complete execution of this Act. no other 
election shall be held in said Territoiy." 

Trumbull says that the object of that amendment was to prevent 
the Convention from submitting the constitution to a vote of the 
people. 

N(jw, I will show you that when 'rniinlmll mi:i(1c that statement 
at Alton he knew it to be untrue. 1 read from Trumbull s speech 
in the Senate on the Toombs bill on the night of its passage. He 
then said: — 

'• Thi-rr is nothing said in this bill, so far us I havo discovered, about 
Kiil)niittin^' tiie constitution, whicii is to be formed, to the jwopie for tliejr 
saiiclion iir rejection. Perhaps the Convention will have the rifiht to sul>- 
niit it, if it should think proper, but il is certainly not compelled to do so, 
accordiii;,' to the jircnisions of the l>ill." 

Thus you see that Trumbull, when the bill was on its i)assage in 
the Senate, said that it was silent on the subject of sulunission, and 
that there was nothing.' in the iiill one way or the other on it. In 
hii^ Alton speech h«.' says there was a clause in the bill preventing; 



DOUGLAS. 303 

its submission to the people, and t!i;it 1 luid it voted ia as an 
amendment. Thus I convict him of falsehood and slander by quot- 
ing from him, on the passage of the Toombs bill in the Senate of 
the United States, his own speech, made on the night of July 2, 
1856, and reported in the Congressional Globe for the first session of 
the thirty-fourth Congress, vol. 33. What will you think of a 
man who makes a false charge, and falsifies the records to prove it? 
1 will now show you that the clause which Trumbull 8a3-s was put in 
the bill on my motion was never put in at all by me, but was stricken 
out on my motion, and another substituted in its place. I call your 
attention to the same volume of the Congressional Globe to which 1 
have already referred, page 795, where you will find the following 
report of the proceedings of the Senate: — 

"JV/". Douglas. — I have an amendment to offer from the Committee on 
Territories. On page 8, section 11, strike out the words 'until the com- 
plete execution of this Act, no other election shall be held in said Terri- 
tory,' and insert the amendment which I hold in my hand." 

You see from this that I moved to strike out the very words that 
Trumbull says I put in. The Committee on Territories oveiTuled 
me in committee, and put the clause in; but as soon as I got t\w. 
I)ill back into the Senate, I moved to strike it out, and put another 
clause in its place. On the same page you will find that my amend- 
ment was agreed to unanimously. I then offered another amend- 
ment, recognizing the right of the people of Kansas, under the 
Toombs bill, to order just such elections as they saw proper. You 
can find it on page 796 of the same volume. I will read it: — 

''Mr. Douglas. — I have another amendment to offer from the Commit- 
tee, to follow the amendment which has been adopted. The bill reads 
now: 'And until the complete execution of this Act, no other election 
shall be held in said Territory.' It has been suggested that it should be 
modified in this way : ' And to avoid conflict in the complete execution of 
tliis Act, all other elections in said Territory are hereby- postponed until 
such time as said Convention shall appoint,' so that they can appoint th^ 
day in the event tliat there should be a failure to come into the Union." 

The amendment was nnanimousli/ agreed to, — clearly and dis- 
tinctly recognizing the right of the Convention to order just as 
many elections as they saw proper in the execution of the Act. 
Trumbull concealed in his Alton speech the fact that the clause he 
quoted had been stricken out in my motion, and the other fact that 
this other clause was put in the bill on my motion, and made the 
false charge that I incorporated into the bill a clause preventing 



;;ii4 ( HAin.Ks'l-oN DKIiATK. SKl'l'K.MHKR 1.^. 1858. 

submission, in the face of tlu* fart, tiiat. (jn my motion, the bill was 
so aujentled before it passed as to recoguize in express words the 
right and duty of submission. 

On this reeord that 1 have produeed beft)re you, I repeat my 
chaitre that TrumliuU did falsify the public records of the country, 
in lU'der to make his char^^e against Uie; and I tell Mr. Ai)raham 
Lincoln that if he will examine these records, he will then know 
that what I state is true. Mr. Lincoln has tliis day indorsed Mr. 
Trnndiulls veracity after he had my word for it that that veracity 
was proved to be violated and forfeited by the public records. It 
will not do for Mr. Jjincoln, in parading his calumnies against me, 
to put Mr. Trumliull between him and the odium and responsibility 
which justly attaches to such calumnies. 1 tell him that I am as 
ready to prosecute the indorser as the maker of a forged note. I 
regret the necessity of occupying my time with these pett}' personal 
matters. It is unl)ecoming the dignity of a canvass for an ottice of 
the character for which we are candidates. When I commenced the 
canvass at Chicago, I spoke of Mr. Lincoln in terms of kindness as 
an old I'rii-nd; I said that he was a good citizen, of unblemished 
t'haracter, against whom I had nothing to say. I repeated these 
complimentary remarks about him in my successive speeches, until 
he became the indorser for these and other slanders against me. If 
there is anything personally disagreeal)le, uncourteous, or disreputa- 
ble in these personalities, the sole responsibility rests on Mr. Lin- 
coln, Mr. Trundjull, and their ])ackers. 

I)(»fOI..\s's .V.N.M.VSIS OF THE " CONSPIR.VCV " Cri.\ROE. 

I will show you another charge made by Mr. Lincoln against me, 
as an otl-sct to his determination of willingness to take back any- 
thing that is incorrect, and to correct any false statement he may 
have made, lie has several times charged that the iSupreme Court, 
President Pierce, President liuchanan, and myself, at the time I 
introduced the Nebraska bill in January, lSr)4, at Washington, en- 
tered into a cons|)irac3' to establish slavery all over this country. I 
branded this charge as a falsehood, and then he repeated it; asked 
me to analyze its truth; and answer it. 1 told him: •• .^lr. Lincoln, 
I know what you are after, - you want to occupy my time in j)er- 
sonal matters, to prevent me from showing up the revolutionary 
principles whiili the .Muilition j)arty — whose candidate you are — 
liJive procliiinied to the world. ' 



DOUGLAS. 305 

But he asked me to analyze his proof, and I did so. I called 
his attention to the fact that at the time the Nebraska bill was in- 
troduced, there was no such case as the Dred Scott case pending in 
the Supreme Court, nor was it brought there for years afterwards, 
and hence that it was impossible that there could have been any such 
conspiracy between the Judges of the Supreme Court and the other 
parties involved. I proved by the record that the charge was false, 
and what did he answer? Did he take it back like an honest man, 
and say that he had been mistaken? No; he repeated the charge, 
and said, that although there was no such case pendiug that year, 
there was an understanding between the Democratic owners of Dred 
Scott and the Judges of the Supreme Court and other parties in- 
volved, that the case should be brought up. I then demanded to 
know who these Democratic owners of Dred Scott were. He could 
not or would not tell ; he did not know. In truth, there were no 
Democratic owners of Dred Scott on the face of the land. Dred 
Scott was owned at that time by the Rev. Dr. Chaffee, an Abolition 
member of Congress from Springfield, Massachusetts, and his wife; 
and Mr. Lincoln ought to have known that Dred Scott was so owned, 
for the reason that as soon as the decision was announced by the 
court Dr. Chaffee and his wife executed a deed emancipating him, 
and put that deed on record. It was a matter of public record, 
therefore, that at the time the case was taken to the Supreme Court, 
Dred Scott was owned by an Abolition member of Congress, a friend 
of Lincoln's and a leading man of his party, while the defense was 
conducted by Abolition lawyers, — and thus the Abolitionists man- 
aged both sides of the case. I have exposed these facts to Mr. 
Lincoln, and yet he will not withdraw his charge of conspiracy'. I 
now submit to you whether you can place any confidence in a man 
who- continues to make a charge when its utter falsity is proven by 
the public records. 

I will state another fact to show how utterly reckless and un- 
scrupulous this charge against the Supreme Court, President Pierce, 
President Buchanan, and myself is. Lincoln says ^that President 
Buchanan was in the conspiracy at Washington in the winter of 
18r)4, when the Nebra.ska bill was introduced. The history of this 
country shows that James Buchanan was at that time representing 
this country at the Court of St. James, Great Britain, with distin- 
guished ability and usefulness, that he had not been in tlie United 
States for nearly a j^ear previous, and that he did not return until 
about three years after. Yet Mr. Lincoln keeps repeating this 
20 



:{(M; CIIAIM.KSTON DKKATE, SEPTKMHHIt IS, IS-IS. 

ch:irj;o of t-unspinicy against Mr. Ihiclianan wlu'ii the public niurils 
provo it to be untrue. 

Having proved it to hv false us far as the Supreme Court and 
President IJui-lianan are eoncerned, I drop it, leaving the public to 
say whether I, by myself, without their concurrence, couhl have gone 
into ji I'oMspiracy with them. My friends, you sec that the object 
clearly is to eonduet the canvass on personal matters, and hunt me 
down with charges that are proven to be false by the pul)lic records 
of the country. 1 am willing to throw open my whole jjublic and 
private life ti> the inspection of any man, or all men who desire to 
investigate il. Having resided among you twent^'-five years, 
during nearly the whole of which time a public man, exposed to 
more assaults, perhaps more abuse, than any man living of my age, 
or who ever did live; and having survived it all and still commanded 
your confidence; I am willing to trust to your knowledge of me and 
my puJ)lic conduct without making any more defense against these 
assaults. 

Fellow-citizens, I came here for the purpose of discussing the 
leading i)olitical topics which now agitate the country. 1 have no 
charges to make against Mr. Lincoln, none against Mr. Trumbull, 
and none against any man who is a candidate; except in repelling 
their assaults upon me. If Mr. Lincoln is a man of bad character, 
I leave you to find it out; if his votes in the past are not satisfac- 
tory, I leave others to ascertain the fact; if his course on the Mexi- 
can war was not in accordance with your notions of patriotism and 
fidelity to our own country as against a public enemy, I leave you 
to ascertain the fact. 1 have no assaults to make upon him, except 
to trace his course on the (juestions that now divide the country and 
engross so much of the people's attention. 

CLAY, C.VSS, AND WKIJSTER. 

You know that prior to 1S54 this country was divided into twf) 
great political i)arties, one the Whig, llie other the Democratic. F, 
as a Democrat for twenty years prior to that time, had been in pub- 
lic discussions in this State as an advocate of Democratic i)rinciples, 
an<l 1 can appeal with confidence to every Old Line Whig within the 
hearing of my voice to bear testimony that during all that period I 
fought you Whigs like a man on every (|iit'slii(n tjial .separalcil the 
two parties. I had the higlu'sl respect for Henry (May as a gallant 
p.'irty lea<ler, as an ^'niinent statesman, and as one of the Itright 
ornaments of this country; Im! I conscientiously believed that the 



DOUGLAS. 307 

Democratic party was right on tlie questions wliich separated the 
Democrats from the Whigs. Tlie man does not live wlio can say 
that I ever personally assailed Henry Clay or Daniel Webster, or 
any one of the leaders of that great party, whilst I combated with 
all my energy the measures they advocated. 

AVhat did we differ about in those days? Did Whigs and Demo- 
crats differ about this slavery question? On the contrary, did we 
not, in 1850, unite to a man in favor of that system of Compromise 
measures which Mr. Clay introduced, Webster defended, Cass sup- 
ported, and Fillmore approved and made the law of the land by his 
signature? While we agreed on those Compromise measures, we 
differed about a bank, the tariff, distribution, the si)ecie circular, 
the sub-treasur}', and other questions of that description. Now, let 
me ask you which one of those questions on which Whigs and 
Democrats then differed now remains to divide the two great parties? 
Every one of those questions which divided Whigs and Democrats 
has passed away, the country has outgrown them, they have passed 
into history. Hence it is immaterial whether you were right or I 
was right on the bank, the sub-treasury, and other questions, be- 
cause the}' no longer continue living issues. What, then, has taken 
the place of those questions about which we once dill'ered? The 
slavery question has now become the leading and controlling issue; 
that question on which you and I agreed, on which the Whigs and 
Democrats united, has now become the leading issue between the 
National Democracy on the one side, and the Republican, or Aboli- 
tion, party on the other. 

Just recollect for a moment the memorable contest of 1850, 
when this country was agitated from its center to its circumference 
by the slavery agitation. All eyes in this nation were then turned 
to the three great lights that survived the days of tlie Revolution. 

They looked to Clay, then in retirement at Ashland, and to 
Webster and Cass, in the United States Senate. Clay had retired 
to Ashland, having, as he supposed, performed his mission on earth, 
and was preparing himself for a better sphere of existence in an- 
other world. In that retirement he heard the discordant, harsh and 
grating sounds of sectional strife and disunion, and he aroused and 
came forth and resumed his seat in the Senate, that great theater 
of his great deeds. From the moment that Clay arrived among us 
he became the leader of all the Union men, whether Whigs or Demo- 
crats. For nine months we each assembled, each da}^ in the coun- 
cil-chamber, Clay in the chair, with Cass upon his right hand, and 



308 CHARLESTON DKISATE. i^EPTEMBER IS. ISTtS. 

Wi'l)StiT upon his h'ft, ami llu- Piiiiorrats and ^Vlligs gathered 
around, forgetting differences, and only animated by one common, 
patriotic si'ntiment, to devise means and measuivs l»y winch we 
could defeat the mad and revolutionary scheme of the Xurthern 
Abolitionists and Southern Disunionists. 

We did devise those means. Clay brought them forward, Cass 
advocated them; the Union Democrats and Union Whigs voted for 
them; Fillmore signed them; and they gave peace and quiet to the 
country. Those Compromise measures of 1850 were founded upon 
the great fundamental principle that the people of each State and 
each Territory ought to be left free to form and regulate their own 
domestic institutions in their own way, sul)ject only to the Federal 
Constitution. I will ask every Old Line Democrat and eve ry OKI 
Line Whig within the hearing of my voice if I have not truly stated 
the issues as they then presented themselves to the country. You 
recollect that the Abolitionists raised a howl of indignation, and 
cried for vengeance and the destruction of Democrats and Whigs 
both, who supported those Compromise measures of 1850. When I 
returned home to Chicago, I found the citizens inflamed and infu- 
riated against the authors of those great measures. Being the only 
man in that city who was held responsii)le for affirmative votes on 
all those measures, I came forward and atldressed the assembled 
inhabitants, defended each and every one of Clay's Compromise 
measures as they passed the Senate and tlie House, and were ap- 
proved by President Fillmore. Previous to tint time, the city 
council had passed resolutions nullifying the Act of Congress, and 
instructing the police to withhold all assisUince from its execution; 
but the people of Chicago listened to my defense, and, like candid, 
frank, conscientious men, when they became convinced that they 
had done an injustice to Clay, Webster, Cass, and all of us who had 
supported those measures, they repealed their nullifying resolutions, 
and declared that the laws should be executed and the supremacy of 
the Constitution maintained. Let it always be recorded in history 
to tlie immortal honor of the people of Chicago that they relurMcd 
to their duty when they found that they were wrong, and ditl justice 
to those whom they had blamed and al»used unjustly. 

When the Legislature of this State assembled that year, they 
proceeded to pass resolutions approving the Compromise measures 
of 1850. When the Whig i)arty asst'ml)led in 1S52 at Baltimore in 
National Convention for the last time, ti> nominate Scott for t!ie 
Presidency, they adopted as a part of their platform the Comi)ro- 



DOUGLAS. 309 

mise measures of 1850 as the cardinal plank upon which every Whig 
would stand, and by which he would regulate his future conduct. 
When the Democratic party assemltled at the same place one mouth 
after, to nominate General Pierce, we adopted the same platform so 
far as those Compromise measures were concerned, agreeing that we 
would stand by those glorious measures as a cardinal article in the 
Democratic faith. Thus you see that in 1852 all the old Whigs and 
all the old Democrats stood on a common plank so far as this 
slavery question was concerned, differing on other ([uestions. 

Now, let me ask, how is it that since that time so many of you 
Whigs have wandered from the true path marked out by Clay, 
and carried out broad and wide by the great Webster ? How 
is it that so many Old Line Democrats have abandoned the old faith 
of their part}', and joined with A])olitionism and Free-soilism to 
overturn the platform of the old Democrats, and the platform of 
the old Whigs ? You cannot deny that since 185-4 there has been 
a great revolution on this one question. How has it been brought 
about ? I answer, that no sooner was the sod grown green over the 
grave of the immortal Clay; no sooner was the rose planted on the 
tomb of the god-like Webster; than many of the leaders of the 
Whig party, such as Seward of New York, and his followers, led o(F 
and attempted to Abolitionize the Whig party, and transfer all your 
old Whigs, bound hand and foot, into the Abolition camp. Seizing 
hold of the temporary excitement produced in this country by the 
introduction of the Nebraska bill, the disappointed politicians in 
the Democratic party united with the disappointed politicians in the 
Whig party, and endeavored to form a new party, composed of all 
the Abolitionists, of Abolitionized Democrats, and Abolitionized 
Whigs, banded together in an Abolition platform. 

"WHO LED THAT CRUSADE?" 

And who led that crusade against National principles in this 
State ? I answer, Abraham Lincoln on behalf of the Whigs, and 
Lyman Trumbull on behalf of the Democrats, formed a scheme by 
which they would Abolitionize the two great parties in this State, 
on condition that Lincoln should be sent to the United States Senate 
in the place of General Shields, and that Trumbull should go to 
Congress from the Belleville District until I would be accommodat- 
ing enough either to die or resign for his benefit, and then he was to 
go to the Senate in my place. You all remember that during the 
year 1854 these two worthy gentlemen, Mr, Lincoln and Mr. Trum- 



:n(l ( llAIM.KSToN DKHATK. SKPTF.M IIKK LS. 1858. 

bull, om- :iii Old Liiii' Wliijz mikI tlii' otlicr :iii Old Line Di'inot-rat, 
wt'ix* buutiiij: ill partnLTship to elect :i Ijegi.slutiiri- against the Demo- 
cnitic party. 

I canviUised the SUite that year fioiii the time I returned home 
until the eleetion came otf, and spoke iu every ecninly liiat 1 eoidd 
reaeh iluring that period. In the northern part of the State 1 found 
Liueolns ally, in the person of Fred Douglass, the negro, preaching 
Abolition doetrines; while Jiincoln was discussing the same prin- 
ciples ilown here; and Trumbull, a little farther down, was advocat- 
ing the election of uieml)ers to tin- Lcgislatun' who wouhl ad iu 
concert with Lim-oln's and Kred l)ouglass's friends. 1 witnessed an 
effort made at CMiiiago by Lincoln's then associates, and now su})- 
porters, to i)ut Fred Douglass, the negro, on the stand at a Demo- 
cratic meeting, to reply to the illustrious General Cass, when he was 
addressing the people there. They had the same negro hunting me 
down, an<l they now have a negro traversing the northern counties 
of the State and speaking iu behalf of Lincoln. Lincoln knows 
that when we were at Freeport in joint discussion there was a dis- 
tinguished colored friend of his there then who was on the stump 
for him, and who made a speech there the night before we spoke, 
and another the night after, a short distance from Freeport, in favor 
of Lincoln; and in order to show how much interest the colored 
brethren felt in the success of their brother Abe, I have with mo 
here, and would read it if it would not occupy too much of my time, 
a speech made by Fred Douglass in Poughkeepsie, N. Y., a short 
time since, to a large Convention, in which he conjures all the 
friends of negro etiuality and negro citizenship to rally as one man 
around Abraham Ijincoln, the perfect eml)odin)ent of their prin- 
ciples, and by all means to defeat Stephen A. Douglas. 

Thus you find that this Republii-an party in the northern part of 
the State hail ct^lored gentlciueu for their advocati's in isr)4, in 
company with Lincoln and Tiiiiul»ull, as they have now. NVhiMi. in 
October, IS;")!, I went down to Springlleld to attend the Slate Fair, 
I found the leaders of this parly all assenilih'd together untler the 
title of an anti-Nebraska meeting. It was Black llepublican -up 
north, and anti-Nebraska at Springlleld. I found Lovejoy, a high- 
priest of Abolitionism, and Ijincoln, one of the le.iders who was 
towing the Old Lint; Whigs into the Abolition camp, and Trumbull, 
Sidney Uree.se, and (Jovernor Keynolds, all making speeches against 
the Democratic party and myself, at the same place and in the same 



DOUGLAS. 311 

cause. The same men who are now fighting the Democratic party 
and the regular Democratic nominees in this State were fighting us 
then. They did not then acknowledge that they had become Aboli- 
tionists, and many of them deny it now. Breese, Dougherty, and 
Reynolds were then fighting the Democracy under the title of anti- 
Nebraska men, and now they are fighting the Democracy' under the 
pretense that the}' are /Simon jiure Democrats, saying that tliey are 
authorized to have every office-holder in Illinois beheaded who pre- 
fers the election of Douglas to that of Lincoln, or the success of the 
Democratic ticket in preference to the Abolition ticket for members 
of Congress, State officers, members of the Legislature, or any office 
in the State. 

They canvassed the State against us in 1854, as they are doing 
now, owning different names and different principles in different 
localities, but having a common object in view, viz : The defeat of 
all men holding National principles in opposition to this sectional 
Abolition party. They carried the Legislature in 1854, and when 
it assembled in Springfield they proceeded to elect a United States 
Senator, all voting for Lincoln, with one or two exceptions, which 
exceptions prevented them from quite electing him. And why 
should they not elect him ? Had not Trumbull agreed that Lincoln 
should have Shields's place ? Had not the Abolitionists agreed to 
it ? Was it not the solemn compact, the condition on which Lincoln 
agreed to Abolitionize the old Whigs that he should be Senator ? 
Still, Trumbull, having control of a few Abolitionized Democrats, 
would not allow them all to vote for Lincoln on any one ballot, and 
thus kept him for some time within one or two votes of an election, 
until he worried out Lincoln's friends, and compelled them to drop 
him and elect Trumbull, in violation of the bargain. 

I desire to read you a piece of testimony in confirmation of the 
notorious public facts which I have stated to you. Colonel James 
H. Matheny, of Springfield, is, and for twenty years has been, the 
confidential personal and political friend and manager of Mr. Lin- 
coln. Matheny is this very day the candidate of the Republican, 
or Abolition, party for Congress against the gallant Major Thos. L. 
Harris, in the Springfield District, and is making speeches for 
Lincoln and against me. I will read you the testimony of Matheny 
about this bargain between Lincoln and Trumbull when they under- 
took to Abolitionize Whigs and Democrats only four j-ears ago. 
Matheny, being mad at Trumbull for having played a Yankee trick 



312 rllARLESTON DERATK. SEPTEMHEIi IS, 1858. 

on Lincoln, oxposccl tho b!ir<;ain in :i piihlio sptvch two years ago, 
and I will n-ad tlu' pui)lislR'd n-porl of that spi't'cli, the correctness 
of wiiifh Mr. Lincoln will not deny: — 

" The Wiiijrs, Abolitionisls, and Kuow-Xothings, and renegade Domo- 
cruts made a solemn compact for the purjMJse of carrying this Slate 
against the Di-mocracy on liiis plan: 1st, that tliey would all combine and 
elect Mr. Trumbull to Congress, and thereby carry his district for the Leg- 
islature, in order to throw all the strength that could be obtained into that 
iKuly against the Democrats; 2d, that when the Legislature should meet, 
the otiicers of that l)ody, such as S[)eakers, clerks, doorkeepers, etc., would 
be given to the Abolitionists; and, '.M, that the Wiiigs were to have the 
United States senator. That, accordingly, in good faitli, Trumbull was 
elected to (\mgress, and his district carried for the Legislature; and when 
it convened, the Abolitionists got all the ofHcers of that body, and tiuis far 
the 'bond' was fairly executed. Tiie Whigs, on tln-ir part, demandeil 
the election of Abraham Lincoln to the United States Senate, that the bond 
might be fuKilled. the other partii-s to the contract having aln-ady secured 
to themselves all that was called for. Hut, in the most perfidious manner, 
they refused to elect Mr. Lincoln; and the mean, low-lived, sneaking 
Trumbull succeded, by pledging all that was rtHpiired by any party, in 
thrusting Lincoln aside, and foisting himself, an excrescence from the 
rotten bowels of the Democracy, into the United States Senate; and thus 
it has ever been, that an honest man makes a bad bargain when he con- 
spires or contracts with rogues." 

Lincoln's confidential friend Matheny thought that Lincoln made 
a bad bargain when he conspired with such rogues as TruuiituU and 
tlie AVtolitionists. I would like to know whether Lincoln had as 
high opinion of Trumbull's veracity when the lalli-r agreed to sui)- 
[jort him for the Senate, and then cheated him as he does now, 
when Trumbull comes forward and makes charges against me. Von 
eould not then prove Trumbull an honest man either by Lincoln, b}' 
Matheny, or by any of Lincoln's friends. They charged everywhere 
that Trumbull had cheated them out of the l)argain, and Lincoln 
foun«l sure enough that it was a hatl Itun/ain to contract and con- 
spire with rogues. 

And now I will explain to you what has l)oen a mystery all over 
the State and Union,— the rea.son why Lincoln was nominated for 
the United States Senate by the Black Uepublican Convention. You 
know it has never been usual for any party, or any convention, to 
nominate a candidate for United States senator. T*robably this was 
the first time that such a thing was ever done The IJlaek Hepubli- 
cnn Convention had not been called for that purpo.sc, but to nomi- 
nate a State ticket, and every man was surprised and many 



DOUGLAS. 313 

disgusted when Lincoln was nominated. Arcliie Williams thought 
he was entitled to it, Browning kuew that he deserved it, Wentworth 
was certain that he would get it, Peck had hopes. J add felt sure 
that he was the man, and Palmer had claims and had made ar- 
rangemenls to secure it; but, to tiieir utter amazement, Lincoln was 
nominated by the Convention, and not only that, but he received 
the nomination unanimously, b}' a resolution declaring that Abra- 
ham Lincoln was " the first, last, and only choice"' of the Republi- 
can party. 

How did this occur? Why, because the}' could not get Lincoln's 
friends to make another bargain with "rogues,"' unless the whole 
party would come up as one man and pledge their honor that they 
would stand by Lincoln, first, last, and all the time, and that he 
should not be cheated by Lovojoy Ihis time, as he was by Trumbull 
before. Thus, by passing this resolution, the Abolitionists are all 
for him, Lovejoy and Farnsworth are canvassing for him, Giddlngs 
is ready to come here in his behalf, and the negro speakers are 
already on the stump for him, and he is sure not to be cheated 
this time. He would not go into the arrangement until he got 
their bond for it, and Trumbull is compelled now to take the stump, 
get up false charges against me, and travel all over the State to try 
and elect Lincoln, in order to keep Lincoln's friends quiet about 
the bargain in which Trumbull cheated them four years ago. You 
see, now, why it is that Lincoln and Trumbull are so mighty fond 
of each other. They have entered into a conspiracy to break me 
down by these assaults on my public character, in order to draw my 
attention from a fair exposure of the mode in which they attempted 
to Abolitionize tlie old Whig and old Democratic parties and lead 
them captive into the Abolition camp. 

Do you not all remember that Lincoln went around here four 
years ago making speeches to you, and telling that you should all 
go for the Abolition ticket, and swearing that he was as good a 
Whig as he ever was; and that Trumbull went all over the State 
making pledges to the old Democrats, and trying to coax them into 
the Abolition camp, swearing by his Maker, with the uplifted 
hand, that he was still a Democrat, always intended to be, and that 
never would he desert the Democratic party. He got your votes to 
elect an Abolition Legislature, which passed Abolition resolutions, 
attempted to pass Abolition laws, and sustained Abolitionists for 
office. State and National. Now, the same game is attempted to be 
played over again. Then Lincoln and Trumbull made captives of 



:;14 CHAKLE-SToN DKHATK, SEPTKM15ER 18, 1858. 

the old Whigs and old Democrats, jind carrii-d llu'iu into the Aboli- 
tiou eamp. whi-iv Fatht-r (iitUlings, tlie high-prk-st of Abolitioiiisin, 
rt'ceivi'd uiul e-hristeneil them in tiie dark cause just as fast as they 
were brought in. Giddings found the converts so numerous that he 
had to have assistance, and he sent for John 1*. Hale, N P. Banks, 
Chase, and otiier Ai)t)Iitic)nists, and tiu-y came on, and willi Love- 
joy and Fred Doughiss, the negro, helped to baptize these iiew con- 
verts as Lincohi, Truml)ul!, Breese, Ki'vnolds, and Dougherty could 
capture them and bring them within the Abolition clutch. (Icntle- 
nu'n, they are now around, making the same kind of speeches. 
TrumliuU was down in Monroe County the other day, assailing me, 
and making a speech in favor of Lincoln; and I will show you under 
what notice his nu'cting was called. You see these people are Black 
llepublicans or Abolitionists up north, while at Springlield to-day 
they dare not call their Convention "Republican," but are obliged 
to say "a Convention of all men opposed to the Democratic party." 
and in Monroe County and lower Egypt Trumbull advertises their 
meetings as follows: — 

A meeting of the Free Democracy will lako pluco at Walcrioo on Mon- 
day, September 12lli inst., whereat lion. Lyman Trumbull, Hon. .h'liu 
Maker, and others will address the people upon the dilfereiii ])oiitieal topics 
of tlie day. Members of all i)arties are cordially invited to be present, and 
hear and determine for themselves. 

September 'J, 1858. Tuii Fuee Democracy. 

Did you ever before hear of this new party, called the ''Free 
Democracy " ' ? 

What object have these Black Bepuljlicans in changing their 
name in every county? They have one name in the iiorlli, another 
in the center, and another in the .south. When 1 uscil to practise 
law before my distinguished judicial friend, whom I recogni/.e in the 
crowd before me, if a man was charged with horse-stealing, and 
the proof showed that he went by one name in Stephenson County, 
another in Sangamon, a third in Monroe, and a fourth in Randolph, 
we thought that the fact of his changing his name so often to 
avoid detection was prett}' strong evidence of his guilt. I would 
like to know why it is that this great Free-soil Abolition party is not 
willing to avow the same name in all jiarls of the State? If this 
party believes tliat its course is just, why does it not avow the same 
principles in the North and in the South, in the East and in the 
West, wherever the American Hag waves over American .soil? 



DOUGLAS. 315 

A Voice. — The party docs not call itself Black Republican in 
the North. 

Mr. Douglas.— Sir, if you will get a copy of the paper published 
at Waukegan, fifty miles from Chicago, which advocates the elec- 
tion of Mr. Lincoln, and has his name flying at its mast-head, you 
will find that it declares that "this paper is devoted to the cause" 
of lihtck R('pnhUc(iit!sm. 1 had a copy of it, and intended to bring it 
down here into Egypt to let you see what name the party rallied 
under up in the Northern part of the State, and to convince you that 
their principles are as ditl'erent in the two sections of the State as is 
their name. I am sorry that I have mislaid it and have not got it 
here. Their principles in the north are jet-black, in the center they 
are in color a decent mulatto, and in lower Egypt they are almost 
white. Why, I admired many of the white sentiments C(mtained in 
Lincoln's speech at Jonesboro, and could not help but contrast them 
with the speeches of the same distinguished orator made in the 
northern part of the State. Down here he denies that the Black 
Republican party is opposed to the admission of any more Slave 
States, under any circumstances, and says that they are willing to 
allow the people of each State, when it wants to come into the 
Union, to do just as it pleases on the question of slavery. In the 
north, you find Lovejoy, their candidate for Congress in the Bloom- 
ington District, Farnsworth, their candidate in the Chicago District, 
and Washburne, their candidate in the Galena District, all declaring 
that never will they consent, under any circumstances, to admit an- 
other Slave State, even if the people want it. Thus, while they avow 
one set of principles up there, they avow another and entirely differ- 
ent set down here. And here let me recall to Mr. Lincoln the script- 
ural quotation which he has applied to the Federal Government, that 
a house divided against itself cannot stand, and ask him how does he 
expect this Abolition party to staijd when in one half of the State it 
advocates a set of principles which it has repudiated in the other 
half? 

I am told that I have but eight minutes more. I would like to 
talk to you an hour and a hulf longer, but I will make the best use 
I can of the remaining eight minutes. Mr. Lincoln said in his first 
remarks that he was not in favor of the social and political equality 
of the negro with the white man. Everywhere up north he has de- 
clared that he was not in favor of the social and jDolitical equality of 
the negro, but he would not say whether or not he was opposed to 
negroes voting and negro citizenship. I want to know whether he 



316 C'llAKLKSTON DEBATP:. SEPTEMHER 18, 1858. 

is for or ji«,':iinst iifj^ro c•itizeusLi^). lie (U-clarcd his utter opposi- 
tion to the Drt'il Seott iK-eisicMi, and lulvuiKed us ji reason that the 
eourt liail di-eiili'tl that it was not possible for a negro to ha a citizen 
under the Constitution of the United States. If beisopposed to the 
l)red Seott decision for that reason, he must be in favor of confer- 
ring the right ami priviU-ge of citizenship upon the negro ! 1 have 
been trying to get an answer from him on that point, but liave 
never yet ol»tained one, and I will show you wliy. In every speecii 
lie made in the north he quoted the Declaration of Independence to 
prove that all men were created etpial, and insisted that the phrase 
"all men" included tlie negro as well as the white man, and that 
the equality rested upon divine law. Here is what he said on that 
point: — 

"I should like to know if, taking tills old Declaration of Independonce, 
wliich di'clart's llial all men are equal upon priiicipk', and making,' cxctq)- 
tioiis to it. whiTf will it stop"' If oin' man says it does not mean a ni-^rro, 
why may not another say it does not mean some other man? If that 1)<'C- 
hiratioM is not tin' truth, let us get the statute book in which we (iiul it 
and tear it out." 

Lincoln maintains there that the Declaration of Independence 
as.serts that the negro is equal to the white man, and that under 
divine law; and if he believes so, it was rational for him to advo- 
cate negro citizenship, which, when allowed, puts the negro on an 
equality under the law. I say to you in all frankness, gentlemen, 
that in my opinion a negro is not a citizen, cannot be, and ought 
not to be, under the Constitution of the United States. I will not 
even qualify my opinion to meet the declaration of one of the 
Judges uf the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case, " that a negro 
descended from African parents, who was imported into this coun- 
try as a slave, is not a citizen, and cannot be." I say that this 
government was established on the white basis. It was made by 
white men, for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever, 
and never should be administered by any except white men. I de- 
clare that a negro ought not to be a citizen, whether his parents 
were imported into this country as slaves or not, or whether or not 
he was born iiere. It does not depend upon the place a negro's parents 
were born, or whether they were slaves or not, but upon the fact 
that he is a negro, belonging to a race incapable of self-governineiit, 
and for that reasriii ought not to be on an eciualily witli whiti' men. 

My friends, I am sorry that I have not time to pursue this argu- 
ment further, as I might have done but for the fact tiiat Mr. Lin- 



LINCOLN. 317 

coin compelled me to occupy a portion of my time in repelling those 
gross slanders and falsehoods that Trumbull has invented against 
me and put in circulation. In conclusion, let me ask you why 
should this Government be divided by a geographical line, — array- 
ing all men North in one great hostile party against all men South ? 
Mr. Lincoln tells you, in his speech at Springlield, "that a house 
divided against itself cannot stand ; that this Government, divided 
into Free and Slave States, cannot endure, permanently ; that they 
must either be all Free or all Slave ; all one thing or all the other." 
Why cannot this Government endure, divided into Free and Slave 
States, as our fathers made it ? When this Government was estab- 
lished by Washington, Jelferson, Madison, Jay, Hamilton, Frankhn, 
and the other sages and patriots of that day, it was composed of 
Free States and Slave States, bound together by one common Con- 
stitution. We have existed and prospered from that day to this 
thus divided, and have increased with a rapidity never before 
equaled, in wealth, the extension of territory, and all the elements 
of power and greatness, until we have become the first nation on the 
face of the globe. Why can we not thus continue to prosper? We 
can, if we will live up to and execute the Government upon tho.se 
principles upon which our fathers established it. During the whole 
period of our existence. Divine Providence has smiled upon us, and 
showered upon our nation richer and more abundant blessings than 
have ever been conferred upon any other. 



MR. LINCOLN'S REJOINDER. 

Fellow-Citizens: It follows as a matter of course that a half- 
hour answer to a speech of an hour and a half can be but a very hur- 
ried one. I shall only be able to touch upon a few of the points sug- 
gested by Judge Douglas, and give them a brief attention, while I 
shall have to totallj' omit others, for the want of time. 

Judge Douglas has said to you that he has not been able to get 
from me an answer to the question whether I am in favor of negro 
citizenship. So far as I know, the Judge never asked me t!ie ques- 
tion before. He shall have no occasion to ever ask it again, for I 
tell him very frankly that I am not in favor of negro citizenship. 
This furnishes nie an occasion for saying a few words upon the sub- 
ject. I mentioned, in a certain speech of mine which has been 



318 (lIAin.KST )N l)i:i!ATi:. SEPTEMBER 18. la'SS. 

printetl, that tiu' Suprciiu' Court Imcl decided that a negro could not 
pcssihly be matle a. citi/en; iind witiiout sayinj; what was my ground 
of complaint in regard to that, or whether I had any grounil of com- 
plaiut, Judge Douglas has from that thing manufactured nearly 
everything that he ever says about my disposition to produce an equal- 
ity between the negroes and the white people. If any 0!ie will read 
my speech, he will find I mentioned that as one of the points 
decided in the course of the Supreme Court opinions, but I did not 
state what ol)jection I had to it. But Judge Douglas tells the 
people what my objection was when 1 did not tell them myself. 
Now. my opinion is that the ditferent iStates have the power to 
make a negro a citizen, under the Constitution of the United States, 
if they clKiose. The Dred Scott decision decides that they have not 
that power. If the State of Illinois had that power, 1 should be 
opposetl to the exercise of it. That is all I have to say about it. 

Judge Douglas has told me that he heard my speeches north, 
and my speeches south; that he had heard me at Ottawa and at 
Freeport in the north, and recently at Jonesboro in the south, and 
there was a very different cast of sentiment in the speeches made at 
ihe ditl'erent points. I will not charge ui)on Juilge Douglas that he 
wilfully misrepresents me, but I call upon every fair-minded man to 
take these speeches and read them, and I dare him to point out am/ 
dijj'i rence hcticcen mi/ speeches north and south. 

While I am here perhaps I ought to say a word, if I have the 
time, in regard to the latter portion of the Judge's speech, which 
was a sort of declamation in reference to my having said I enter- 
tained the belief that this Government would not endure, half Slave 
and half Free. 1 have said so, and 1 did not say it without what 
seemed to me to be good reasons. It perliajjs would require more 
time than I have now to set forth these reasons in iletail; but let me 
ask you a few questions. Have we ever had any peace on this 
slavery question? When are we to have peace upon it, if it is kept 
in the position it now occupies? IIow are we ever to have peace 
upon it? That is an important question. To be sure, if we will 
all stop, and allow Judge Douglas and his friends to inarch on in 
their present career until they plant the institution all over the 
nation, here and wherever else our Ilag waves, and we acquiesce in 
it, there will be jicace. IJut let me ask Judge Douglas how he is 
going t<> get the people to do that? They have been wrangling 
over this question for at least forty years. This was the c.inse of 
the agitation resulting in the .^lissouri Conq)r()nnse; this produced 



LINCOLN. :; i <) 

the troubles at the annexation of Texas, in the acquisition of the 
territory acquired in the Mexican War. 

Again, tliis was the trouble which was quieted liy the Compro- 
mise of 1850, when it was settled ^^ forever,'' as both the great polit- 
ical parties declared in their National Conventions. That ' ' for- 
ever" turned out to be just four years, lohen Judge Dotiglax /n'mself 
reopened it. When is it likely to come to an end? He introduced 
the Nebraska bill in 1854 to put another end to the slavery agitation. 
He promised that it would finish it all up immediately, and he has 
never made a speech since, until he got into a quarrel with the 
President about the Lecompton Constitution, in which he has not 
declared that we are Just at the end of the slavery agitation. But in 
one speech, I think last winter, he did say that he did n't quite see 
when the end of the slavery agitation would come. Now he tells us 
again that it is all over, and the people of Kansas have voted down 
the Lecompton Constitution. How is it over? That was only one 
of the attempts at putting an end to the slavery agitation, — one of 
these "final settlements." Is Kansas in the Union? Has she 
formed a constitution that she is likely to come in under? Is not 
the slavery agitation still an open question in that Territory? Has 
the voting down of that constitution put an end to all the trouble? 
Is that more likely to settle it thlin every one of these previous 
attempts to settle the slavery agitation? 

Now, at this day in the history of the world we can no more 
foretell where the end of this slavery agitation will be than we can 
see the end of the world itself. The Nebraska- Kansas bill was in- 
troduced four years and a half ago, and if the agitation is ever to 
come to an end, we may sa}^ we are four years and a half nearer the 
end. So, too, we can say we are four j^ears and a half nearer the 
end of the world; and we can just as clearly see the end of the 
world as we can see the end of this agitation. The Kansas settle- 
ment did not conclude it. If Kansas should sink to-day, and leave 
a groat vacant space in the earth's surface, this vexed question 
would still be among us. I say, then, there is no way of putting 
an end to the slavery agitation amongst us but to put it back upon 
the basis where our fathers placed it; no way but to keep it out of 
our new Territories, — to restrict it forever to the old States where 
it now exists. Then the public mind will rest in the belief that it is 
in the course of ultimate extinction. That is one way of putting an 
end to the slaA'ery agitation. 

The other way is for us to surrender, and let Judge Douglas and 



320 CHARLESTON DEHATE, SEPTEMBER IS, ISSS. 

his fiieiuKs have their way and plant shivery over all the States; 
cease speaking of it as in any way a wrong; regard slavery as one 
of the eoiunion matters of property, and speak of negroes as we do 
of our horses and cattle. But while it drives on in its state of pro- 
gress as it is now driving, and as it has driven for the last five years, 
I have ventured the opinion, and I say to-day, that we will have no 
end to the slavery agitation until it takes one turn or the other. I 
do not mean that when it takes a turn toward ultimate exliiictiiiii it 
will Ite in a day, nor in a year, nor in two years. I do not suppose 
that in the most peaceful way ultimate extinction would occur in 
less than a hundred years at least ; but that it will occur in the best 
way for both races, in God's own good time, I have no doubt. But, 
my fririuls, 1 have u.sed up more of my lime than I inteiiiU'(l on this 
point 

Now, in regard to this matter al)out Trumbull and myself having 
maile a bargain to sell out the entire Whig and Democratic parties 
in lSr)t; Judge Douglas brings forward no evidence to su.stain his 
charge, except the speech Matheny is said to have made in 1850, in 
whicli he told a cock-and-bull stor\' of that sort, upon the same 
moral principles that Judge Douglas tells it here to-day. This is 
the simple truth. I do not care greatly for the story, but this is 
the truth of it; and I have twice told Judge Douglas to his face 
that from Ixginning to end there is not one word of truth in it. I 
iiave called upon iiim for the proof, and he does not at all meet me as 
Trumbull met him upon that of which we were just talking, by pro- 
ducing the record. He did n't i)ring the record, because there was 
no record for him to bring. Wlien he asks if I am ready to indorse 
Trumbull's veracity after he has broken a bargain with me, I reply 
that if Trumbull hud broken a liargain with me, I would not be likely 
U) indorse his veracity; but I am ready to indorse his veracity be- 
cause ID it/n r ill that ihtiKj^ nor in uni/ athtr, in all (lie ynirs that I Jiuve 
known Lifnum Tiiinilmll, h<ii-r I h-nuirn him. to /nil nf liis ironl or tell a 
fiihihooii^ litnjr or AninU . It is for tiiat ri'asoii (liiit T indorse Lyman 
Trumliull. 

Mr. .Innus lirown (Douglas postmaster). — \Vhat does Ford's 
History say about him? 

Mr. Lincoln. — Some gciillcman asks me what Ford's History 
Hays about him. .My own recollection 'is, that Ford speaks of 
Trumbull in very disrespectful terms in several portions of his 
b<H)k, (inil that hi tulhs a f/mit (hii/ irnrsr of Jmlijf JJouffhis. I refer 
you, sir, to the History for examination. 



LINCOLN. 321 

Judge Douglas complains, at considerable length, about a dis- 
position on the part of Trumbull and myself to attack liim person- 
ally. I want to attend to that suggestion a moment. I don't want 
to be unjustly accused of dealing illiberally or unfairly witii an 
adversary, either in court, or in a political canvass, or anywhere 
else. I would despise myself if I supposed myself ready to deal 
less liberally with an adversary than I was willing to be treated 
myself. Judge Douglas, in a general way, without putting it in a 
direct shape, revives the old charge against me in reference to the 
Mexican war. He does not take the responsibility of putting it in 
a very definite form, but makes a general reference to it. That 
charge is more than ten years old. He complains of Trumbull and 
myself, because he says we bring charges against him one or two 
years old. He knows, too, that in regard to the Mexican war story, 
the more respectable papers of his own party throughout the State 
have been compelled to take it back and acknowledge that it was 
a lie. 

[Here Mr. Lincoln turned to the crowd on the platform, and, 
selecting Hon. Orlando B. Ficklin, led him forward, and said: — ] 

I do not mean to do anything with Mr. Ficklin, except to pre- 
sent his face and tell you that lie personally knows it to he a lie! He 
was a member of Congress at the only time I was in Congress, and 
he [Ficklin] knows that whenever there was an attempt to procure 
a vote of mine which would indorse the origin and justice of the war, 
I refused to give such indorsement, and voted against it; but I 
never voted against the supplies for the army, and he knows, as 
well as Judge Douglas, that whenever a dollar was asked, by way 
of compensation or otherwise, for the benefit of the soldiers, / gave 
all the votes that Ficklin or Douglas did, and pcrluips more. 

Mr. Ficklin. — My friends, I wish to say this in reference to the 
matter. Mr. Lincoln and myself are just as good personal friends 
as Judge Douglas and myself. In reference to this Mexican war, 
my recollection is that when Ashmun's resolution [amendment] was 
oflfered by Mr. Ashmuu of Massachusetts, in which he declared that 
the Mexican war was unnecessary and unconstitutionally commenced 
by the President, — ^ my recollection is that Mr. Lincoln voted for 
that resolution. 

Mr. Lincoln. — That is the truth. Now, you all remember that 

was a resolution censuring the President for the manner in which 

the war was begun. You know they h-ive charged that I voted 

against the supplies, by which I starved the soldiers who were out 

21 



32l' < IIAIILESTON DEHATK. SEPTEMBER KS. 1858. 

fighting till' IciUk's of tlu'ir country. I say llial Fii-kliii knows it i.s 
false. Wluii that cliarjii* was brouglit forward by the Chicago 
TiiiKs, the SpriiiirlU'd Iii</isfrr [Douglas organ] reminded the Tinns 
that the charge really applied to John Henry; anil 1 do know that 
.lohn Henry /< now making spwches <ind jiircily buttling fitr Jmlyc 
piiiii/his. If the Judge now says that he offers this as a sort of a 
.set-oir to what I said to-day in reference to Trumbuirs charge, then 
I remind him that he made this charge before 1 said a word about 
Trumbull's. He brought this forward at Ottawa, the lirst time we 
met face to face; and in the opening speech that Jmlge Douglas 
made, he attacked me in regard to a matter ten years old. Is n't 
he a pretty man to lie whining about people making charges against 
hira only tirn years old I 

The Judge thinks it is altogether wrong that T should have 
dwelt upon this charge of Trumliulls at all. I gave the apology 
for doing so in my opening speech. Perhaps it did n't fix your at- 
tention. I said that when Judge Douglas was speaking at places 
where I spoke on the succeeding day, he used very harsh language 
about this charge. Two or three times afterward I said I had con- 
fidence in Judge Trumbull's veracity and intelligence; and my own 
opinion was, from what I knew of the character of Judge Trumbull, 
that he would vindicate his position, and prove whatever he had 
stated to be true. This I repeated two or three times; and then I 
dropped it, without saying anything more on the subject for weeks, 
— perhaps a month. I passed it by without noticing it at all till I 
found, at Jacksonville, Judge Douglas, in the plenitude of his 
power, is not willing to answer Trumbull and let me alone, but he 
comes out there and uses this language: " He should not hereafter 
occupy his time in refuting such charges made by Trumbull, but 
that Lincoln, having indorsed the character of Trumbull for verac- 
ity, he should hold him [Lincoln] responsilile for the slanders. " 
What was Lincoln to tlo'.' Did he not do right, when he had the fit 
opportunity of meeting .Judge Douglas here, to tell him he was 
ready for the responsil»ility? I ask a candid audience whether in 
doing thus Judge Douglas was not the assailant rather than I? 
Here I meet him face to face, and say I am ready to take the re- 
spi>nsibility, ho far as it rests on me. 

Having done sci. I ask the attention of this audience to the 
(piestioii whether I have succeeded in sustaining the charge, and 
whether ,Iu<lge Douglas h:is at all succeeded in rebutting if.' \on 
all heard nu- call upon \\\ni [n say ufiic/i <>/ t/imr jn'ivrs <>/ i tidincc 



LINCOLN. 323 

was a forger ij? Does he say that wliat T present here as a copy of 
the original Toombs bill is a forgery ? Does he say that what I 
present as a copy of the bill reported by himself is a forgery? Or 
what is presented as a transcript from the GJohv of the quotations 
from Higler's speech, is a forgery? Does he say the quotations from 
his own speech are forgeries? Does he say this transcript from 
Trumbull's speech is a forgery? [Voices: " He didn't deny one of 
them.'] I would then like to know how it comes about that tchen each 
piece of a story is true, the whole story turns out false? I take it these 
peoide have some sense; they see plainly that Judge Douglas is 
playing cuttle-fish, — a small species of fish that has no mode of 
defending itself when pursued except by throwing out a black fluid, 
which makes tin; water so dark the enemy cannot see it, and thus it 
escapes. Is not the Judge playing the cuttle-fish? 

Now, I would ask very special attention to the cDUsideration of 
Judge Douglas's speech at Jacksonville; and when you shall read 
his speech of to-day, I ask you to watch closely and see which of 
these pieces of testimony, every one of which he says is a forgery, 
he has shown to be such. Mot one of than has he shown to be afor- 
<jer\j. Then I ask the original question. If each of the pieces of 
testimony is true, how is it j)ossihlc that the whole is a falsehood f 

In regard to Trumbull's charge that he [Douglas] inserted a pro- 
vision into the bill to prevent the constitution being submitted to 
the people, what was his answer ? He comes here and reads from 
the Congressional Globe to show that ou his motion that provision 
was struck out of the bill. Why, Trumbull has not said it was not 
stricken out, but Trumbull says he [Douglas] put it in ; and it is no 
answer to the charge to sa}^ he afterward took it out. Both are 
perhaps true. It was in regard to that thing precisely that I told 
him he had dropped the cub. Trumbull shows you that by his in- 
troducing the bill it was his cub. It is no answer to that assertion 
to call Trumbull a liar merely because he did not specially say that 
Douglas struck it out. Suppose that were the case, does it answer 
Trumbull ? I assert that you [pointing to an individual] are here 
to-day, and you undertake to prove me a liar by showing me that 
you were in Mattoon yesterday. I say that you took your hat off 
your head, and you prove me a liar by putting it on your head. 
That is the whole force of Douglas's argument. 

Now, I want to come back to my vi'igiual question. Trumbull 
says that Judge Douglas had a bill with a provision in it for submit- 
ting a Constitution to be made, to a vote of the people of Kansas. 



;{L>-4 ( HAUI.KS'ION 1)I:1;ATK. SEPTEMDKR 18, 1858. 

Does Juiliji' l)uughis deny tliat fiict ? Does he deny that the pro- 
vision which Trumbull reads was put in that Ijill ? Then Trumbull 
says he struck it out. Does he tlare to ileny that ? He does not, 
and I have tiie rijjht to repeat the (juestion, — Win/ Jmhjv Duiujlus 
Inok it out* JJigler has said there was a coniljination of certain 
senators, among whom he did not include Judge Douglas, by which 
it was agreed tliat the Kansas bill sliould have a clause in it not to 
have the eimstitution formed under it submitted to a vote of the 
people, lie did not say that Douglas was among them, l)ut we 
prove by another source that about the same time Douglas comes 
into the Senate nilh tfmt jinnisifin sfrick'cn out of tin hi//. 

Allliough IJiglcr cannot say they were all working in concert, 
yet it looks very much as if tiic thing was agreed upon and done 
wiili a mutual undeistanding after the conference; and while we do 
not kiKiw that it was absolutely so, yet it looks so probable that we 
havi' a right to call upon the man who knows the true reason why it 
was done, t>> ti// ulint tin line nasim ini.s. When he will not tell 

what the true reas(m was, he stands in the attitude of an accused 
thief who has stolen goods in his possession, and when called to 
account, refuses to tell where he got them. Not only is this the 
evidence, but when he comes in with the bill having the provision 
stricken out, he tells us in a speech, not then, but since, that these 
alterations and moililications in the l)ill /kh/ been mudv /n/ him, in 
(iiiitiultation irit/i Tumn/ts^ t/ir orii/iiititor >>/ t/ic hi//. lie tcUs US the 
same to-day. He says there were certain modifications made in 
t!ie bill in committee that he did not vote for. I ask you to remem- 
ber while certain amendments were made which he disapproved of, 
but which a majority of the Committee voted in, he has himself 
told us that in this particular tlic a/trmtions aud mod iji cat ions were 
nini/r /iij him, upon consu/tution uifk Toondis. We have his own 
word that these alterations were made hi/ him, and not by the 
Committee. 

N(tw, 1 ask, what is the rea.son Judge Douglas is so chary about 
coming to the exact (piestion ? What is the reason he will not tell 
you anything about how it was made, by whom it was made, or that 
he remendjers it Ix-ing mach; at all ? Why d<K'S he stand playing 
upon the meaiung of words, and (luilibling around the edges of the 
evidence? If he can explain all this, but leaves it unexplained, I 
have u right to infer that Judge Douglas understood it was the 
purpose of his party, in engiiu-ering that bill through, to make a 
constitution, and have Kansas conic into tlu- Cnion with that con- 



Lincoln. -^o-^ 

stitution, withoift its Jjrlng siihrniftcd in a vote of tlie jxopJc. If he 
will explain his action on this question, by giving a hitta- reason for 
tlie facts that happened, tluni he has done, it will Ije satisfactory. 
But until he does that, — until he gives a better or more plausible 
reason than he has ottered against the evidence in the case, — / •'<"^- 
gest to li'nn it will not arail him at all that he sicells himself iiji, takes 
on dic/nifij, ami calls people liars. Why, sir, there is not a word in 
Trunibulls si^eecli that depends on Trumbull's veracity at all. He 
has onl}^ arrayed the evidence, and told you what follows as a 
matter of reasouiny-. There is not a statement in the whole speech 
that dei)euds on Ti'iunbull's word. If 3-ou have ever studied geom- 
etry, you remember that In' a course of reasoning, Euclid proves 
that ail the angles in a triangle are equal to two right angles. 
Euclid has shown you how to work it out. Now, if you undertake 
to disprove that proposition, and to show that it is erroneous, would 
you prove it to be false by calling Euclid a liar ? Thej' tell me that 
vay time is out, and therefore I close. 



EXTRACT FROM MR. TRUMBULL'S SPEECH MADE AT ALTON, 
REFERRED TO BY MR. LINCOLN IN HIS OPEN- 
ING AT CHARLESTON. 

I come now to another extract from a speech of Mr. Douf^las, made at 
Beardslown, and reported ill the Missouri Republican. Thi.s extract has 
reference to a statement made by me at Chicago, wherein I ciiarged that 
an agreement had boeu entered into by the very persons now chiiming 
credit for opposing a constitution not submitted to the people, to have a 
constitution formed and put in force without giving the people of Kansas 
an opportunity to pass upon it. Without meeting this charge, which I 
substantiated by a reference to the record, mj" colleague is reported to 
have said : — 

" For when this cliargo was once made in a mucli milder form, in the 
Senate of the United States. I did brand it as a lie in tiie presence of Mr. 
Trumbull, and Mr. Trumbull sat and heard it thus branded, without dar- 
ing to say it was true. I tell you he i<new it to be false when he uttered it 
at Chicago; and yet he says he is going to 'cram the lie down any iionest 
man's throat until he cannot deny it. And to the man who does deny it, 
I will cram the lie down iiis throat until he should cry enougii.' Tlie mis- 
erable, craven-hearted wretch ! he would rather have both ears cut off 
than to use that language in my presence, where I could call him to ac- 
count. I see the object is to draw me into a personal controversy, with the 
hope thereby of concealing from the public the enormity of the principles 
to which they are committed. I shall not allow much of my time in this 
canvass to be occupied by these personal assaults : I have none to make on 
Mr. Lincoln ; I have none to make on Mr. Trumbull; I have none to make 



32(j SPEECH uF TKI'-MIULL. 

oil iiiiy othor i^oliticnl oppfononl. If I r;mnot siantl on my own public roo- 
oril, on my own private ami jHiblif cliararltT as history will record it, I 
will not attempt t«i rise by traducing: the character of other men. 1 will 
not make a black^'uurd of myself by imitatinj,' the course they have pur- 
sued against me. 1 have no char^'es to make aaainst them." 

This is a sinirular statement, taken alto-rether. After indulfrinjx in lan- 
•.'Uatre which would dis-rraco a loafer in the lUthiesl purlieus of a (ish- 
market, he winds up by sayinp Dial he will not make ablackfjuard of 
himself, thai he has no charj^es to make af^ainst me. So \ sui)pose ho con- 
siders thai to say of another that he knew h thing to bft false when he 
uttered it. that he was a " miserable, craven-hearted wretch," does not 
amount to a personal assault, and does not make a man a blackguard. A 
discriminating public will judge of that for themselves; but as he .says he 
has "no charges to make on Mr. Trumbull," I supijoso politeness requires 
1 should believe him. At the risk of again offending this mighty man of 
war, and losing something more than my ears, I shall have the audacity 
to again read the record upon him, and prove and pin upon him, so that 
he cannot escape it, the truth of every word I uttered at Chicago. You, 
fellow-citizens, are the judges to determine whether I do this. My col- 
league says he is willing to stand on his public record. Hy that he shall 
be tried; and if he had been able to discriminate between the e.vposure of 
a public act by the record, and a personal attack upon the individual, he 
would have discovered that there was nothing personal in my Chicago re- 
marks, unle.ss the condemnation of him.self by his own jjublic record is 
l>er.s()nal; and then you must judge who is most to blame for the torture 
his jiublic record inflicts upon him, he for making, or I for reading 
it after it was made. As an individual, I care very little about Judge 
iKiuglas one way or the other. It is his public acts with which I have to 
do, an»l if they condemn, di.sgrace, and consign him to oblivion, he has 
only himself, not me, to blame. 

Now, the charge is that there was a plot entered into to have a consti- 
tution formed for Kansas, and put in force, without giving the people an 
opportunity to pass upon it. and that Mr. Douglas was in the plot. This is 
as susceptible of proof b}' the record as is the fact that the State of Minne- 
sota was admitted into the Union at the last session of Congress. 

On the 'J.")th of June, 1856, a bill was pending in the United States 
Senate U) authorize the people of Kansas to form a constitution and come 
into the l^'nion. On that day Mr. Toombs offered an amendment which 
he intended to propose to the bill which was ordered to be printed, and, 
with the original bill aiul other amendments, recommended to the Com- 
mittee on Territories, of which Mr. Douglas was Chairman. This amend- 
ment of Mr. Toombs, printed by order of the Senate, and a cojjy of which 
I have here present, |)rovided for the app<tintment of commissioners wiio 
were to take H census of Kan.sas, divide the Territory into election districts, 
and su|M'rintend the election of delegates to form a constitution, and con- 
tains a clause in the 18th .section which I will read to you requiring the 
constituti<jn which should be formeil to be submitted to the i)eopl(' for 
adoption. It reads as follows: — 

" That the following propositions be, and the same arc, hereby olFered to 
the said Convention of the iwople of Kansas, when formed, for their free 



SPEECH OF TRUMBULL. 327 

acceptance or rojoction, which, if accepted by the Convention, and ratified 
by the people at the t'h'ctJDii lor the iuloption of the constitution, shall be 
oblij^atory on the United States, and upon the said State of Kansas," etc. 

It has been contended by some of the newspaper press that this section 
did not require the constitution which should be formed, to be submitted 
to the people for approval, and that it was only the land proposititms 
which were to be submitted. You will observe the lann:uage is that the 
lypopositions are to be " ratified by the pc^ople at the election for the adop- 
tion of the constitution." Would it have been possible to ratify tlie land 
{)ropositions "at the election for the adoption of tlie constitution," unless 
such an election was to be held? 

When one thing is required by a contract or law to be done, the doing 
of which is made dependent upon, and cannot be performed without, the 
doing of some other thing, is not that other thing just as much required 
I)}- the contract or law as the first? It matters not in what part of the Act, 
nor in what phraseology the intention of the Legislature is expressed, so 
you can clearly ascertain what it is; and whenever that intention is ascer- 
tained from an examination of the language used ; such intention is part 
of, and a requirement of, the law. Can anj* candid, fair-minded man read 
the section I have quoted, and sa\' that the intention to have the constitu- 
tion which should be formed submitted to the people for their adoption, is 
not clearly expressed? In my judgment there can be no controversy 
among honest men upon a proposition so plain as this. Mr. Douglas 
has never pretended to deny, so far as I am aware, that the Toombs 
amendment, as originally introduced, did require a submi.ssion of the con- 
stitution to the people. This amendment of Mr. Toombs was referred to 
the Committee of which Mr. Douglas was Chairman, and reported back 
by him on the 30th of June, with the words, " And ratified by the people at 
the election for the adoption of the constitution," stricken out. I have here 
a copy of the bill as reported back by Mr. Douglas, to substantiate the state- 
ment I make. Various other alterations were also made in the bill, to 
which I shall presently have occasion to call attention. There was no other 
clause in the original Toombs bill requiring a submission of the constitu- 
tion to the people than the one I have read, and there was no clause what- 
ever, after that was struck out, in the bill, as reported back by Judge 
Douglas, requiring a submission. I will now introduce a witness whose 
testimony cannot be impeached, he acknowledging himself to have been 
one of the conspirators and privy to the fact about which he testifies. 

Senator Bigler, alluding to the Toombs bill, as it was called, and 
which, after sundry amendments, passed the Senate ; and to the propriety 
of submitting the constitution which should be formed to a vote of the 
people, made the following statement in his place in the Senate, December 
9th, 18.57. I read from part 1, Congressional Globe, of last session, para- 
graph 21: — 

" I was present when that subject was discussed by senators, before the 
bill was introduced, and the question was raised and discussed whether 
the constitution, when formed, should be submitted to a vote of the peo- 
ple. It was held bv the most intelligent on the subject that in view of 
all the difficulties 'surrounding that Territory, the danger of any experi- 
ment at that time of a popular vote, it would be better that there should 



H28 SPEECH OF TRUMHULL. 

be III) siu'li provision in tin- Toombs bill; 'iinl it is my uiultTStaiKliiii.'. in 
all tlu' int«'rooursi' I had, that that Convfiitioii wduM tnakf a coiisiituiiou 
uiiU sfuil it litTf, without siibmittiniir it to the jiopuhir vote" 

In sp«'ukin^ of this meotinjr u^ain on the 21st of December, 18.')? ( Con- 
gresnioutil (ilobf, same volume, page 113), Senator Bigler said: — 

" Nothing was farther from my mind than to allude to any social or 
confldt'nlial inti-rvicw. The meeting was not of that character. Indeed, 
it was smii-otlicial, and called to promote the public good. My recollec- 
tion was dear that 1 left the «unference uniler the impression that it 
had been deemed best to adopt measures to admit Kansas as a State 
through the agency of one popular election, and that for deleirates to the 
Convention. This iinpressioii was tln' stronger, because 1 iliouglit the 
spirit of the bill infringed upon the doctrine of non-intervention, to which 
1 liail great aversion; but with the hope of accomplishing great good, and 
as no movi-ment had been made in that direction in the Territory, I 
waived this objection, and concluded to support the measure. I have a 
few items «tf testimony as to the correctness of these impressions, and 
with their submission I shall be content. I have before me the bill re- 
|Kirted by the Senator from Illinois, on the 7th of March, IK."))), providing 
for the admission of Kansas as a State, the third section of which reads as 
follows: — 

" ' That the following propositions be, and the .same are hereby offered 
to the said Convention of the people of Kansas, when formed, for their 
free acceptance or rejection; wiiicli. if accejjted by the Convention and 
ratified by the i)eoi)le at the election for the adoption of the constitution, 
shall be obligatory upon the United States and uixju the said State of 
Kaiisas.' 

"The bill read in place by the Senator from Georgia, on the 25th of 
.Tune, and referred to the Committee on Territories, contained the same 
s»'Ction. word for word. li(Jth these bills were under consideration at the 
conference n-fcrred to; but, sir, when the Senator from Illinois reported 
the Toombs bill to the Senate, with amendments, the ne.vt morning, it did 
not contain that iwrtion of the third .section which indicated to the Con- 
vention tiiat the constitution should be approved by the people. The 
words "and ratified by the people at the election for the adoption of the 
constitution ' had been stricken out." 

I am not now seeking to prove that Douglas was in the plot to force a 
constitution upon Kansas without allowing the people to vote directly 
ui>on it. 1 shall attend to that branch of the subject by and by. My ob- 
ject now is to prove the existence of the plot, what the design was. and I 
a.sk If I have not already done so. Here are the facts: — 

The introduction of a bill on the 7th of March, 18,")G, providing for the 
calling of a Convention in Kansas to form a State constitution, and provid- 
ing that the constitution should be submitted to the people for adoption ; an 
amendment to this bill, proposed by Mr. Toombs, containing the same re- 
ipiiri-ment ; a reference of these various bills to the Committee on Terri- 
tories; a consultation of senators to determine whether it was advisable 
to have the constitution submitted for ratification ; the determination that 
it was not advisable; and a rejMirt of the l)ill back to the Senate in'xt 
morning, with the clau.se providing for the submission stricken out. Could 
evi«|ence be more complete to establish the first part of the charge I have 
made of a plot having been entered into by .somebody, to have a coustitu- 
liou adojited without submitting it to the people ? 



SPEECH OF TRUMBULL. ;{29 

Now, for the other part of the charge, that .Tudge Douglas was in iliis 
plot, whether knowingly or ignorantly is not material to my purpose. The 
charge is that he was an instrument co-operating in the project to have a 
constitution formed and put into operation, without affording the people 
an opportunity to pass upon it. The first evidence to sustain the charge is 
tiie fact tliat he reported back the Toombs amendment, with the clause 
providing for the submission stricki'n out, — this in connection with his 
sfjeech in the Senate on the 9th of December, 1857 {Congressional Globe, 
part 1, page 14), wherein he stated : — 

" That during the last Congress I [Mr. Douglas] reported a bill from 
the Committee on Territories, to authorize the people of Kansas to assem- 
ble and form a Constitution for themselves. Subsequently tlie Senator 
from (ieorgia (Mr. Toombs) brought forward a substitute i'or my bill, 
which, after having been modified by him and myself in consultation, was 
passed bj' the Senate." 

This of itself ought to be sufficient to show that my colleague was an 
instrument in the plot to have a constitution put in force without submit- 
ting it to the people, and to forever close his mouth from attempting to 
deny. No man can reconcile his acts and former declarations with his 
present denial, and the only charitable conclusion would be that he was 
being used by others without knowing it. Whether he is entitled to the 
benefit of even this excuse, j'ou must judge on a candid hearing of the 
facts I shall present. When the charge was first made in the United 
States Senate, by Mr. Bigler, that my colleague had voted for an Enabling 
Act which put a government in operation without submitting the consti- 
tution to the people, my colleague {Congressional Olobe, last session, part 1, 
page 24) stated : — 

" 1 will ask the senator to show me an intimation from any one member 
of the Senate, in the whole debate on the Toombs bill, and in the Union 
from any quarter, that the constitution was not to be submitted to the 
people. 1 will venture to say that on all sides of the chamber it was so 
unders^^ood at the time. If tlie opponents of the bill had understood it 
was not, they would have made the point on it ; and if they had made it, 
we should certainly have yielded to it, and put in the clause. That is a 
discovery made since the President found out that it was not safe to take 
it for granted that that would be done which ought in fairness to have 
been done." 

I knew at the time this statement was made that I had urged the very 
objection to the Toombs bill two years before, that it did not provide for 
the submission of the constitution. You will find my remarks, made on 
the 2d of July, 1856, in the Appendi.x: to the Congressional Olobe of that 
year, page 179, urging this very objection. Do you ask why 1 did not ex- 
pose him at the time ? I will tell you : Mr. Douglas was then doing good 
service against the Lecompton iniquity. The Republicans were then en- 
gaged in a hand-to-hand fight with the National Democracy to prevent the 
bringing of Kansas into the Union as a Slave State against the wishes of 
its inhabitants, and of course I was unwilling to turn our guns from the 
common enemy to strike down an ally. Judge Douglas, however, on the 
same day, and in the same debate, probably recollecting, or being re- 
minded of, the fact that I had objected to the Toombs bill when pending, 



;i:iO si'KKrii t)F TKi.Mia 1,1.. 

that it (lit! not idovidi- for tin- suhinissioii of llii* constiliitioii to tin- pi oplr-, 
miulf another slatiMiU'iit, wliirh is to be fouiiil in tin- same sohinn' of ihf 
('onyrfHitiotutl (Uohf, pat.''" 'i'i, in which Ijo says : — 

"That thf bill was silent on the subject is true, ami tny attention wa■^ 
calletl to that about the time it was ]»assed ; and I took the fair construe- 
tioii to be, that powers not deU'jjated were reserved, and tliat of course tin- 
ct)nstitution would be submitted to the people." 

Whether this statement is consistent with the statement just before 
made, that had the jtoint been made It would have been yielded to, or that 
it was a new tUscovery, you will determine; for if the public records do 
not convict and condemn him, he may fro uncotidemiied, so far as I am 
ctmcerned. I make no use here of the testimony of Senator Hitler tt)show 
that .ludjre Doujrlas must have been privy to the constiltalion held at his 
house, when it was determined not to sulimit the constitutimi to the peo- 
ple; because . I uilf.'!' Dou^rlas denies it, and I wish to use his own acts and 
declarations, which are abundantly surticienl for my |)urixjse. 

I conu" to a piece of testimony which disposes of all these various pre- 
tenses which have l>een set up for strikin<? out of the orijrinal TcHjmbs 
proi>osil ion the clause retjuirin^' a submission of the constitution to the 
people, and shows that it was not doneeilher by accident, by inadv(?rlence, 
iir because it was believed that, the bill bein^r silent on the subject, the 
et nstitulion would necessarily be submitted to the i)eople for approval. 
What will you think, after listening to the facts already presented, toshow 
that there was a desijrn with those who concocted the Toombs l)ill. as 
amended, not to submit the constitution to the people, if I now brin;.' be- 
fore you the amended bill as Judjre Douj^las reported it back, and show 
the clause of the orijrinal bill requiring submission was not only struck 
out, but that other clauses were inserted in the bill, pultiniy: it absolutely 
out of the power of the Convention to submit the constitution to the peo- 
ple for approval, had they desired to do so? If I can produce such evi- 
dence as that, will you not all a<rree that it clinches aiul establishes forever 
all I char^'ed at Chicajro, and more too ? 

I proiM)se now to furnish that evidence. It will be remembered ti>al 
Mr. Toombs's bill provided for holdin;r an election for delegates to form a 
constitution under the supi-rvision of commissiom-rs to be appointed by 
l!ie President ; and in the bill as ri'jiorted back by .Judge Douirlas. lhe.se 
words, uitt to bi found in the uriijiunl bill, are inserted at the close of the 11th 
section, viz. : — 

•' .And until the complete e.xecwiion of tins ,\ct, no otlier ejection siiall 
be held in said Territory." 

Tills clause put It out of liie JinWer of tile C'onVellti(Hl lo refer to the 

IH'ople for adoption; it absolutel\ prohibited the liolding of any other elec- 
tion than that for the election of delegates. t|I| that A<'t was completely 
e.xeculed, which would not have been until Kansas was admitted as ;i 
State, or at all r'vents till her constitution was fully prepared and ready 
for submission to Congress for admission. Otlur amendments reporte<l by 
Judge Douglas to the original Toombs bill clearly show that the inlentiou 
was to enable Kansas to become a State without anv further actKUi than 



SPEECH OF TRUMBULL. ?>?>\ 

simply a resolution of admission. The amendment reported by Mr. 
I)()ii';liis, that "until the ne.\t Congressional apportionment, the said Stale 
shall have one representative," clearly shows this, no such provision beinj? 
contained in the original Toombs bill. For what other earthly purpose 
Cd'ild the clause to prevent any other election in Kansas, e.vcept that of 
delegates, till it was admitted as a State, have been inserted, e.vcept to 
prevent a submission of the Constitution, when formed, to the people? 

The Toombs bill did not pass in the e.vact shape in which Judge 
Douglas reported it. Several amendments were made to it in the Senate. 
1 am now dealing with the action of Judge Douglas as connected with that 
bill, and speak of the bill as he recommended it. The facts I have stated 
ill regard to this matter appear upon tlie records, which I have here pres- 
ent to show to any man wlio wishes to look at them. They establish be- 
yond the power of controversy all the charges I have made, and show that 
.ludge Douglas was made use of as an instrument by others, or else know- 
ingly was a party to the scheme to have a government put in force over 
tiie people of Kansas, without giving tliem an opportunity to pass upon it. 
That others high in position in the so-called Democratic party were par- 
ties to such a scheme is conf(>ssed by Governor Bigler ; and the only reason 
why the scheme was not carried, and Kansas long ago forced into the Union 
as a Slave State, is the fact, that the Republicans were sufficient!}' strong 
in the House of Representatives to defeat the measure. 



EXTRACTS FROM MR. DOUGLAS'S SPEECH MADE AT JACKSON- 
VILLE, AND REFERRED TO BY MR. LINCOLN IN HIS 
OPENING AT CHARLESTON. 

I have been reminded by a friend behind me that there is another 
topic upon which there has been a desire expressed that I should speak. 
I am told that Mr. Lyman Trumbull, who has the good fortune to hold a 
seal in the United States Senate, in violation of the bargain between him 
and Lincoln, was here the otiier da\' and occupied his time in making C(M'- 
tain charges against me, involving, if they be true, moral turpitude. 1 
am also informed that the charges he made here Avere substantially the 
same as those made by him in the city of Chicago, which were printed in 
the newspapers of that city. 1 now propose to answer those charges and to 
aiinihilate everj' pretext that an honest man has ever had for repeating 
them. 

In order that I may meet these charges fairlj-, I will read them as made 
by Mr. Trumbll, in his Chicago speech, in his own language. He says: — 

"Now, fellow-citizens, I make the distinct charge that there was a pre- 
concerted arrangement and plot entered into bj' the very men who now 
claim credit for opposing a constitution not submitted to the peo!)h\ t > 
iiave a constitution formed and put in force without giving the people a > 
opportunity to pass upon it. This, my friends, is a serious ciiarge, but i 
chariic it tii-iiigiit tliat the very men who traverse the country under ban- 
ners procljiiming popular sovereignty, by design concocted a bill ou pur- 
pose to lorce a constitution upon that people." 



332 SPEKi 11 OF DoUlJLAS. 

Airaiii. s|H>akii)^ t<» Hjc some ctiu- in tin- orowil. In- says: — 

"Aii'l \«m want to satisfy yourself that he was in tiic j)iot to force a 
roiisiii iiiioii ii|M>>i tiiat iM'o|ilfy 1 will satisfy you. 1 will train tin- triitii 
tlowii any lioncst man's tiiroat until In* cannot deny it. ami to the man 
who (lots iliiiy it 1 will cram the lie tlt)wn his throat till he shall cry. 
•Knou;.'hI' It is |ire|M)sterous; it is the most tlamnahle eirroiitery that 
man ever |iut tin, to ct>nce;il a .scheme tti defraiul ami cheat the people oul 
of their riu'lits antl then d.iim cntlil for it." 

That is polite antl decent laiifruap' for a senatt)r of the I'niled Stales. 
Romember that that lan;ruaj,'e was useil without any provocation wh.itever 
from mo. I lunl not alluiU-tl to him in any manner in any sjjeech that 1 
l>ad made, hence without prtivocatit)n. As stion as he sets his fotH within 
the State, he makes the direct charjre that I was a party to a plt)t to Itirce 
)i constitution upon the people of Kansas against their will, antl, knowini: 
that it would be denied, he talks about cramming the lie down the throat 
of any man who shall deny it, until he cri(»s " Enough." 

Why did lie take it for gnmted that it would be denied, unless he knew 
it to be false? .Why did he deem it necessary to make a threat in advance 
that he would "cram the lie " down the throat of any man that should 
tleny it? I have no doubt that the entire Abolition part}' consider it very 
|jolite for Mr. Trumbull to go round uttering calumnies of that kiml. 
bullying, and talking of cramming lies down men's throats; but if I deny 
any of his lies by calling him a liar, they are shocked at the indecency of 
thi» language ; hence, to-day. insteail of calling him a liar 1 inteml to prove 
that he is one. 

I wish, in the first fjlace, to refer to the evidence adduced by Trumbull, 
at Chicago, to sustain his charge. He there declared that Mr. Toombs. 
tif Georgia, intrtnluced a bill into Congress uu'li^^rizing the people of Kan- 
sas to form a constitution and come into the Union, that when introduced 
it contained a clause reijuiring the constitution to be submitted to the peo- 
ple, and that I struck out the words of that clause. 

Suppose it were true that there was such a clause in the bill, and that 
I strtick it out, is that proof of a plot to force a constitution upon a people 
aL'ainst their will? liear in mind that from the days of George Washing- 
ton to the Administration of Franklin Pierce, there had never been passed 
by Ctjngress a bill retiuiring the submission of a constitution to the people. 
If Truml)uirs charge, that I struck out that clause, were true, it would 
only prove that 1 had re]Mjrted the bill in the e.xact shafie of every bill ct 
like character that passinl under Washington, .lelTer.son, Madison, Mt)iiroe, 
Jackson, or any t)ther Presiilent, to the time of the then present Adminis- 
tration. I ask you, wmiltl that be evidence of a design to force a const it u- 
ti(»n on a people against their will? If it wen? so, it wtiuld be eviilence 
against Washington, .lell'erson, Matli.st)n, .lackson. \'.iii l>iireii, antl every 
other Presiilent. 

Hut, uiKMi examination, it turns out that the Ttiombs bill never did 
contain u clause retpiiring the constitution tt) be submitletl. Hence no 
such clause was over stricken out, by me or anybody else. It is true, how- 
ever, that the TtMimbs iiill antl its authors all tt)ok it for grantetl that the 
constitution would be sulunilted. There hail never been, in the history of 



SPEECH OF DOUGLAS. 333 

this Govornmont, ;iny attempt made to force a constitution upon an unwill- 
ing people, and nobody dreamed that any sucli attempt would be made, 
or deemed it necessary to jirovide for sucli a contingency. If such a 
clause was necessary in Mr. Trumbull's opinion, why did he not otl'er an 
amendment to that etfect? 

In order to give more pertinency to tliat (juestion, I will read an e.xtract 
from Trumbull's speech in the Senate, on the Toombs bill, made on the 
2d of July, 1850. He said : — 

"We are asked to amend this bill and make it perfect, and a liberal 
spirit seems to be manifested on tiie part of some senators to have a fair 
bill. It is difficult, I admit, to frame a 1)11! tiiat will give satislaction to 
all, but to approach it, or come near it, 1 think two things must be done." 

The first, then, he goes on to say, was the application of the Wilmot 
Proviso to the Territories, and the second the repeal of all the laws passed 
by the Territorial Legislature. He did not then sa\^ that it was necessary 
to put in a clause requiring the submi-ssion of the constitution. AVhy, if 
he thought such a provision necessary, did he not introduce it? He says 
ill his speech that he was invited to offer amendments. Why did he not 
do so? He cannot pretend that he had no chance to do this, for he did 
offer some amendments, but none requiring submission. 

I now proceed to show that Mr. Trumbull knew at the time that the 
bill was silent as to the subject of submission, and also that he, and every- 
body else, took it for granted that the constitution would be submitted. 
Now for the evidence. In his second speech he says : "The bill in man}- 
of its features meets my approbation." So he did not think it so very bad. 

Further on he saj^s : — 

"In regard to the measure introduced by the senator from Georgia [Mr. 
Toombs], and recommended by the Committee, I regard it, in many re- 
spects, as a most excellent bill ; but we must look at it in the light of sur- 
rounding circumstances. In the condition of things now existing in the 
country, I do not consider it as a safe measure, nor one which will give 
peace ; and will give my reasons. First, it affords no immediate relief. 
It provides for taking a census of the voters in the Territory for an elec- 
tion in November, and the assembling of a Convention in December, to 
form, if it thinks proper, a constitution for Kansas, preparatory to its ad- 
mission into the Union as a State. It is not until December that the Con- 
vention is to meet. It would take some time to form a constitution. / 
suppose that constitution would have to be ratified by the people before it becomes 
valid. ' ' 

He there expressly declared that he supposed, under the bill, the con- 
stitution would have to be submitted to the people before it became valid. 
He went on to say: — 

"No provision is made in this bill for such a ratification. This is ob- 
jectionable to my mind, I do not think the people should be bound by a 
constitution, without passing upon it direcll}', themselves." 

Why did he not offer an amendment providing for such a submission, 
if he thought it necessary? Notwithstanding the absence of such a clausi', 
he took it for granted that the constitution would have to be ratified by 
the people, under the bill. 



334 SPEECH OF DOUGLAS. 

In another part of the same speech, he says: 

"There is nothing said in this bill, so far as I have discovered, about 
submitting the constitution which is to be framed, to the people, for the 
sanction or iv.iec ion. IVrhapsthe Convention would have the right to sub- 
mit it. It It s louhl think proper; but it is certainly not compelled to do so!ac- 
wi t T^tVn: provisions ot the bill. If it is to be submitted to the people? it 
will take time an<l it will not be until some time next year that this new 
cZtlT.T' .'!*^™''^'^'"^ '•'^tifi'^d by the people, would be submitted here to 
h^the meln' HmeT'^ '''' '^^''^'■'' ^° ^' "'' condition of that people 

You see that his argument then was that the Toombs bill would not -et 
Kansas into the Union quick enough, and was objectionable on that ac- 
count. He had no fears about this submission, or why did he not intro- 
duce an amendment to meet the case? 

d ^'^'it'''-— ^^'^'y '^'^' "'t .yoii '■' You were Chairman of the Committee 

Mr. Douglas.— I ^Yill answer that question for you. 

In the first place, no such provision had ever before been put in any 
similar Act passed by Congress. I did not suppose that there was an hon- 
est man who would pretend that the omission of such a clause furnished 
evidence of a conspiracy or attempt to impose on the people. I could not 
be expected that such of us as did not think that omission was evidence 
of such a scheme, would offer such au amendment; but if Trumbull then 
believed what he now says, why did he not offer the amendment, and try 
to prevent it, when he was, as he says, invited to do so? 

In tills connection I will tell you what the main point of discussion 
was : There was a bill pending to admit Kansas whenever she should have 
a population of 93,420, that being the ratio required for a member of Con- 
gress. Under that bill Kansas could not have become a State for some 
years, because she could not have had the requisite population Mr 
loombs took It into his head to bring in a bill to admit Kansas then with 
only twenty-five or thirty thousand poople, and the question was whether 
we would allow Kansas to come in under this bill, or keep her out under 
mine until she had 93,420 people. The Committee considered that ques- 
lion. and overruled me, by deciding in favor of the immediate admission 
ot Kansas, and I reported accordingly. I hold in my hand a copy ef the 
report which I made at that time. I will read from it: — 

"The point upon which your Committee have entertained the most 
serious and grave doubts in regard to the propriety of indorsing the prm^- 
sition, relates to the fact that, in the absence of any census ot "the inhabi- 
tants, tii ere IS reason to apprehend that the Territory does not contain 
sufhcent population to entitle them to demand admission under the re ■ 

' ' i '■",',"■"• ' ''m ^^''^ ^'^^ '"^^'^^ "^' representation for a member of Con- 
^russ tis Liu* rule. 

Thus you .see that in the written report accompanying the bill I 
said that the great difficulty with the Committee was the question of 
|K,pulation. In th<- same report I happened to refer to the question of 
submi.ssion. Now, listen to what I said about that; — 

''I".!!"- opimon of your Commilt-e, whenever a constitution shall he 
loimr,, ,n any lernlory. pn-paiaton io its admission into the Union as a 



SPEECH OF DOUGLAS. 335 

State, justice, the genius of our institutions, tlie whole theory of our re- 
publican system, imperatively demand that the voice of the people shall 
be fairly expressed, and their will embodied in that fundamental law, 
without fraud, or violence, or intimidation, or any other improper or un- 
lawful influence, and subject to no other restrictions than those imposed 
by the Constitution of the United States." 

I read this from the report I made at the time, on the Toombs bill. 
I will read yet another passage from the same report; after setting out the 
features of the Toombs bill, I contrast it with the proposition of Senator 
Seward, saying: — 

"The revised proposition of the Senator from Georgia refers all matters in 
dispute to the decision of the present population, with guarantees of fair- 
ness and safeguards against frauds and violence to which no reasonable 
man can find just grounds of exception; while the Senator from New York, 
if Ills proposition is designed to recognize and impart vitality to the To- 
peka Constitution, proposes to disfranchise, not only all the emigrants who 
have arrived in the Territory this year, but all the law-abiding men who 
refused to join in the act of open rebellion against the constituted authori- 
ties of the Territory last year, by making the unauthorized and unlawful 
action of a political party the fundamental law of the whole people." 

Then, again, I repeat that under that bill the question is to be referred 
to the present population to decide for or against coming into the Union 
under the constitution they may adopt. 

Mr. Trumbull, when at Chicago, rested his charge upon the allegation 
that the clause requiring submission was originally in the bill, and was 
stricken out by me. When that falsehood was exposed by a publication 
of the record, he went to Alton and made another speech, repeating the 
charge and referring to other and different evidence to sustain it. He saw 
that he was caught in his first falsehood, so he changed the issue, and in- 
stead of resting upon the allegation of striking out, he made it rest upon 
the declaration that I had introduced a clause into the bill prohibiting the 
people from voting upon the constitution. I am told that he made the 
same charge here that he made at Alton, that I had actually introduced 
and incorporated into the bill a clause which prohibited the people from 
voting upon their constitution. I hold his Alton speech in my hand, and 
will read the amendment which he alleges that I offered. It is in these 
words: — 

" And until the complete execution of this Act, no other election shall 
be held in said Territory." 

Trumbull says the object of that amendment was to prevent the Con- 
vention from submitting the constitution to a vote of the people. I will 
read what he said at Alton on that subject: — 

"This clause put it out of the power of the Convention, had it been so 
disposed, to submit the constitution to the people for adoption; for it abso- 
lutely prohibited the holding of any other election than that for the election 
of delegates, till the Act was comi)letely executed, which would not have 
been till Kansas was admitted as a State, -or, at all events, till her consti- 
tution v/as fully prepared and ready for submission to Congress for ad- 
mission." 



336 SPEECH or DOUGLAS. 

Now. do you suppose that Mr. Trumbull supposed that that clause pro- 
hibited the Coiivi'iition from submitting.' th(? constitution to the people, 
when, in his sjm'i'cIi in the Senate, he declared tiiat tlie Convention had a 
riirht to submit it? In his Alton speech, as will be seen by the extract 
which I have read, he declared that the clause put it out of the power of 
Ihe Convention tu submit tiie con.stitution, and in his speech in tiie Senate 
he said: — 

"There is tiofhiny xiiid in thin bill, so far as I have discovered, about 
submittiuf; the constitution which is to be formed, to the people, for tiuir 
sanction or rejection. Pi-rhaps the Convention could have the ri^'lit to 
submit it. if it should think |)roper, but it is certainly not compelled to do 
so according to the provisions of the bill." 

Thus you see that, in Congress, he declared the bill to be silent on 
the subject, and a few days since, at Alton, he made a speech and said 
that there was a provision in the bill prohibiting submission. 

1 have two answers to make to that. In the first place, the aniciid- 
ment which he quotes as depriving the people of an opportunity to vote 
upon the constitution (c^s xtricken out on my motion, — absolutely stricken 
out, and not voted on at all I In the second place, in lieu of it, a provision 
was voted in, authorizing the Convention to order an election whenever it 
pleased. I will read. After Trumbull had ma<le his speech in the Senali'. 
ileclaring that the constitution would probably be submitted to the people, 
although the bill was silent up(m that subject, I made a few remarks, anil 
otfered two amendments, which you may find in the Appendi.v \.o the 
Congressionul Globe, volume thiry-three, first session of thi.> Thirty-fourth 
Congress, page 795. 1 quote: — 

^' Mr. DovgUts. — I have an amendment to offer from tiie Committee on 
Territories. On page 8, section 11, utrike out the irordx • until the complete 
execution of this act no other election shall be held in said Territory,' and 
insert the amendment which 1 hold in my hand." 

The amendment was as follows : — 

"That all persons who shall jwssess the other qualifications prescribed 
for voters under this Act, and who shall have been bona fide inhabitants of 
said Territory since its organization, and who shall have ab.sented them- 
selves therefrom in consequence of the disturbances therein, and who shall 
return l)efore the first day of October ne.xt, and become bonii Jide iiiliai)it- 
ants of tiie Territory, with the intent of making it their i)ermaiient home, 
and shall present satisfactory evidence of tliese facts to the lioard of Com- 
missioners, shall lie entitled to vote at said election, and shall have their 
name.s placed on said corrected list of voters for that puri)ose." 

That amendment was adopted unanimously. After its adoption, the 
record shows the following: — 

"Mr. DdUijlitM. — I have another amendment to oiler from the Commit- 
tee, to follow the amendment which has been adojited. The bill reads 
now, 'And until the comi)let(' execution of this ,\cl, no other election 
shall be held in said Territory.' it has been suggested that it should be 
modified in this way, 'And to av(jid all coiillict in the comi)lete execution 
of this Act, all other elections in said Territory are hereby jiostiKnied until 
such time as said Conventi(Hi shall apiK)inl,' so that they can appoint the 
dav in the event that there should be a failure to come into the L'nion." 



DOUGLAS. 337 

This amendment was also agreed to, without dissent. 

Thus you see that tlie amendment quoted by Trumbull at Alton as 
evidence against me, instead of being put into the bill by me, was stricken 
out on my motion, and never became a part thereof at all. You also see 
that the substituted clause expressly authorized the Convention to appoint 
such day of election as it should deem proper. 

Mr. Trumbull when he made that speech kn(!w these facts. He forged 
his evidence from beginning to end. and by falsifying the record he endeav- 
ors to bolster up his false charge. I ask you what you think of Trumbull 
thus going around the country, falsifying and garbling the public records. 
I ask you whether you will sustain a man who will descend to the infamy 
of such conduct. 

Mr. Douglas proceeded to remark that he should not hereafter occupy 
his time in refuting such charges made by Trumbull, but that, Lincoln 
having indorsed the character of Trumbull for veracity, he should hold 
him [Lincoln \ responsible for the slanders. 



FIFTH JOINT DEBATE, AT GALESBURG. 

October 7, 1S5S. 

MR. DOUGLAS'S SPEECH. 

Ladies and Gentlemen : Four years ago I appeared before the 
people of Knox Couuty for the purpose of defending my political 
action upon the Compromise Measures of 1850 and the passage of 
the Kansas-Nebraska bill. Those of you before me who were 
present then will remember that I vindicated myself for supporting 
those two measures by the fact that they rested upon the great fun- 
damental principle that the people of each State and each Territory 
of this Union have the right, and ought to be permitted to exercise 
the right, of regulating their own domestic concerns in their own 
way, subject to no other limitation or restriction than that which 
the Constitution of the United States imposes upon them. I then 
called upon the people of Illinois to decide whether that principle of 
self-government was right or wrong. If it was and is right, then 
the Compromise Measures of 1850 were right, and consequently, the 
Kansas and Nebraska bill, based upon the same principle, must 
necessarily have been right. 



3:js ualksburg debate. October 7, i858. 

Tlif Kansas and Nebraska l)ill (Ifcland, in so many words, that 
it was tlu' true intent and nicanini; <»f tlii' Avt not to U-jxishiti' sluvorv 
into any State or Territory, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to 
leave Ihe people thereof perfectly free to form and ref^ulate their do- 
mestic institutions in their own way, subject only to tlie Constitution 
of the United States. For ll»e last four years 1 have dev(jted all my 
enerjiies, in private and public, to commend tiiat principle to the 
American people. Whatever else may be said in ci^ndemnation or 
support of my political course, I ai)prt'hend that no honest man will 
doul)t the fidelity with which, under all circumstances, I have stood 
by it. 

l)urin;^ the last year a (lucstion arose in the Con'j;ress of the 
I'niti'd States whether or not that principle would be violated I)y the 
admission of Kansas into the Tnicm under the Lecomplon C<justitu- 
tion. In my opinion, the attempt to force Kansas in under that 
constitution was a gross violation of the principle enunciated in the 
CompKiinise Measures of IS.")!), and Kansas and N.liraska bill of 
1854, and therefore I led oil' in the fight against the Lecompton 
Constitution, and conducted it until the effort to carry tlitit constitu- 
tion through Congress was abandoned. And I can appeal to all 
men, friends and foes, Democrats and Republicans, Northern men 
and Southern men, that during the whole of that fight I carried the 
l)anner of Popular Sovereignty aloft, and never allowed it to trail in 
the dust, or lowered my flag until victory perched upon our arms. 

When the Lecompton Constitution was defeated, the question 
arose in the minds of those who had advocated it what they should 
next resort to in order to carry out their views. They devised a 
measure known as the English bill, and granted a general amnesty 
and political pardon to all men who had fought against the Lecomp- 
ton Constitution, provided they wouKl support that bill. I for 
one did not choose to accept the parilon, or to avail myself of the 
amnesty granted on that cojulition. The fact that the supporters 
of jA'compton were willing to forgive all diircrcnces of opinion at 
that time in the event those who opposed it favored the English 
itill, was an admission they did not think that o|)position to 
Jjecompton impaired a man's standing in the Dv-mociat ic party. 

N<»w, the (piestion arises, What was that Engli.Nli hill which cer- 
tain men arc now attempting to make a test of political orthodoxy 
in this country? Ft provideil, in substance, that the Lccomptt)n 
Constitution should be sent back to the people of Kansas for their 
adoption or rejection, at an election which was held in August last, 



DOUGLAS. 339 

and ill case they refused admission under it, tluit Kansas should be 
licpt out of tlie Union until she had 93,420 inhabitants. I was in 
favor of sending the constitution back in order to enal)le tlie people 
to say whether or not it was their act and deed, and embodied their 
will; but the other proposition, that if they refused to come into 
tlie Union under it, they should be kept out until they had double 
oi- treble the population they then had, I never would sanction by 
my vote. The reason why I could not sanction it is to be found in 
the fact that by the English bill, if the people of Kansas had only 
agreed to become a slaveholding State under the Lecompton Con- 
stitution, they coidd have done so with 35,000 people, but if they 
insisted on being a Free State, as they had a right to do, then they 
were to be punished by being kept out of the Union until they had 
nearly three times that popul.-ition. I then said in my place in the 
Senate, as I now say to you, that whenever Kansas has population 
enough for a Slave State, she has population enough for a Free 
State. I have never yet given a vote, and I never intend to record 
one, making an odious and unjust distinction between the different 
States of this Union. I hold it to be a fundamental principle in 
our Republican form of government that all the States of this Union, 
old and new, free and slave, otand on an exact equality. 

Equality among the different States is a cardinal principle on 
which all our institutions rest. Wherever, therefore, you make a 
discrimination, saying to a Slave State that it shall be admitted 
with 35,000 inhabitants, and to a Free State that it shall not be 
admitted until it has 93,000 or 100,000 inhabitants, you are throw- 
ing the whole weight of the Federal Government into the scale in 
favor of one class of States against the other. Nor would I, on the 
other hand, any sooner sanction the doctrine that a Free State could 
be admitted into the Union with 35,000 people, while a Slave State 
was kept out until it had 93, 000. I have always declared in the 
Senate my willingness, and I am willing now to adopt fehe rule, 
that no Territory shall ever become a State until it has the requisite 
population for a member of Congress, according to the then exist- 
ing ratio. But while I have always been, and am now, willing to 
adopt that general rule, I was not willing and would not consent 
to make an exception of Kansas, as a punishment for her obstinacy 
in demanding the right to do as she pleased in the formation of her 
constitution. It is proper that I should remark here, that my 
opposition to the Lecompton Constitution did not rest upon the 
peculiar position taken by Kansas on the subject of slavery. I 



31U CALKSBURG DEBATE, OCTOBER 7, 1858. 

liL'kl tbeu, aud hold now, that if tho people of Kansas want a r^lave 
State, it is their right to make one, and be received into the Union 
under it; if, on the eontrary, they want a Free Statf, it is their 
right to have it, and no man should ever oppose their aduiission 
because they ask it uiuli-r the one or the other. 1 hold t(j that 
great principle of self-government which asserts the right of every 
people to decide for themselves the nature and character of the 
ilomestic institutions and fundamental law under which they are 
to live. 

The effort has l)een and is now being made in this State by cer- 
tain postmasters and other Federal (jllice-holders to make a test 
of faith on the support of the English bill. These men are now 
making speeches all over the State against me and in favor of 
Lincoln, either directly or indirectly, because I would not sanction 
a discrimination between Slave and Free States by voting for the 
English bill. But while that bill is made a test in Illinois for the 
purpose of breaking up the Democratic organization in this State, 
how is it in the other States? Go to Indiana, and there you find 
English himself, the author of the English bill, who is a candidate 
for re-election to Congress, has been forced by public opinion to 
abandon his own darling project, and to give a promise that he 
will vote for the admi.ssion of Kansas at once, whenever she forms 
a constitution in pursuance of law, and ratifies it by a majority 
vote of her people. Not only is this the case with English himself, 
but I am informed that every Democratic candidate for Congress 
in Indiana takes the same ground. Pass to Ohio, and there 5'ou 
liud that Groesbeck, and rendlelon, and Cox, and all the other 
anti-Lecompton men who stood shoulder to shoulder with me 
against the Jjccompton Constitution, but voted for the English 
bill,' now repudiate it and take the same ground that I do on that 
(|uesti(»n. So it is with the Joneses and others of Pennsylvania, 
and so it is with every other Lecompton Democrat in the Free 
States. They now abandon even the English bill, and come back 
to the true platform which I i)roclaimed at the time in the Senate, 
and u\Hm which the Democracy of Illinois now stand. 

And yet. notwithstanding tin* fact that every Lecompton and 
anti-Lecoiiipton Di-nioerat in the Free States has abandoned the 
English liill. you are told that it is to Ik- made a test upon me, 
while the power and patronage of the (lovernment are all exerti'd 
to elect men to Congress in the otlxT States who occupy the same 
position with referenee to it that 1 do. It .seems that my political 



DOUGLAS. 341 

offense consists in the fact thut I first did not vote for tiie English 
bin, and thus pledge myself to keep Kansas out of the Union until 
she has a population of 93.420, and then return home, vif)late that 
pledge, repudiate the bill, and take the opposite ground. If I had 
done this, perhaps the Administration would now be advocating 
my re-election, as it is that of the others who have pursued this 
course. I did not choose to give that pledge, for the reason that 
I did not intend to carrj- out that principle. I never will consent, 
for the sake of conciliating the frowns of power, to pledge myself 
to do that which I do not intend to perform. I now submit the 
question to you, as my constituency, whether I was not right, first, 
in resisting the adoption of the Lecompton Constitution, and, sec- 
ondly, in resisting the English bill. I repeat that I opposed the 
Lecompton Constitution because it was not the act and deed of 
the people of Kansas, and did not embody their will. I denied the 
right of au}' power on earth, under our system of government, to 
force a constitution on an unwilling people. There was a time 
when some men could pretend to believe that the Lecompton Con- 
stitution embodied the will of the people of Kansas ; but that time 
has passed. The question was referred to the peojjle of Kansas 
under the English bill hist August, and then, at a fair election, 
they rejected the Lecompton Constitution by a vote of from eight 
to ten against it to one in its favor. Since it has been voted down 
b}' so overwhelming a majority, no man can pretend that it was 
the act and deed of that people. 

I submit the question to you whether or not, if it had not been 
for me, that constitution would have been crammed down the 
throats of the people of Kansas against their consent. "While at 
least ninety-nine out of every hundred people here present agree 
that I was right in defeating that project, yet my enemies use the 
fact that I did defeat it by doing right, to break me down and put 
another man in the United States Senate in my place. The very 
men who acknowledge that I was right in defeating Leco:npton 
now form an alliance with Federal office-holders, professed Lecomp- 
ton men, to defeat me, because I did light. My political opponent, 
Mr. Lincoln, has no hope on eai'th, and has never dreamed that he 
had a chance of success, were it not for the aid that he is receiving 
from Federal office-holders, who are using their influence :ind 
the patronage of the Government against me in revenge for my 
having defeated the Lecompton Constitution. 

What do you Republicans think of a political organization that 



342 tJALESHrUf; DKIiATE. (K'TOHKH 7. 1858. 

will try to niuki' an unholy ami uiinatuial i-oinljination with its pro- 
fi'ssi'il foes to beat a man nuTely because he has tlone ri<rht ? You 
know that such is the fact with rejjard to your own part}'. You 
know that the axe of decapitjition is suspended over every man in 
olllce in IHin<»is, and the terror of proscription is threatened ever}' 
Di'iuoiTat l)y the pnsent Administration, unless he supports the 
Kepublican ticket in preference to my D.Mmcratic assoL;iatcs and 
myself. 1 could lind an instance in the postmaster of the city of 
(Jalesburg, and in every other postmaster in this vicinity, all of 
whom have been stricken down simpl}' because they discharged the 
duties of their olllces honestly, and supported the regular Demo- 
cratic ticket in this State in the right. The Kepublican part\' is 
availing itself of ever}' unworthy means in the [)resent contest to 
carry the election, because its leaders know that if they let this 
chance slip they will never have another, and their hopes of making 
this a Republican State will be blasted forever. 

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 

Now, let me ask you whether the country has any interest in 
sustaining this organization known as the Uepuijlican party. That 
party is unlike all other political organizations in this country. All 
other parties have been national in their character, — Jiave avowed 
their principles alike in the Slave and Free States, in Kentucky, as 
well as Illinois, in Louisiana as well as in Massachusetts. Such 
was the case with the old Whig party, and such was and is the ca.se 
with the Democratic party. Whigs and Democrats could proclaim 
their |*rinciples boldly and fearlessly in the North and in the South, 
in the East and in the West, wherever the Constitution ruled, anil 
the American Hag waved over American soil. 

But now you have a sectional organization, a party which ap- 
peals to the Northern section of the Union against the Southern, a 
party which appeals to Northern passion, Northern pride, Northern 
ambition, Northern prejudices, against Southern people. theSt)uthern 
Stiites, and Southern institutions. The leaders of that party hope 
that they will be able to unite the Northeiii States in one great 
Bectional party; and inasmuch as tlie North is the strongi-st sectioii, 
that they will thus be enabled to out -vote, conquer, govern and 
(•<»ntrol the South. Hence you lind that they now m.ike speeches 
advocating jirinciples and measures which canned be defendetl in any 
Hlaveholding State of this rnioii. Is (here a Kepublican residing in 
(Jalesbiirg who can travel into KeiiliicUy amf carry his principles 
with him across the Ohio? What Kepublican from Massachusetts 



DOUGLAS. 343 

can visit the Old Dominion without leaving his principles behind 
him when he crosses Mason and Dixon's line? Permit me to say to 
you in perfect good humor, but in all sincerity, that no political creed 
is sound which cannot be proclaimed fearlessl}- in every State of this 
Union where the Federal Constitution is the supreme law of the land. 
Not only is this Republican party unable to proclaim its prin- 
ciples alike in the North and in the South, in the Free States and in 
the Slave States, but it cannot even proclaim them in the same 
forms and give them the same strength and meaning in all parts of 
the same State. M}' friend Lincoln finds it extremely dillieult to 
manage a debate in the center part of the State, where there is a 
mixture of men from the North and the South. In the extreme 
northern part of Illinois he can proclaim as bold and radical 
Abolitionism as ever Giddings, Lovejoy, or Garrison enunciated ; 
but when he gets down a little farther south he claims that he 
is an Old Line Whig, a disciple of Henry Clay, and declares that he 
still adheres to the Old Line Whig creed, and has nothing what- 
ever to do with Abolitionism, or negro equality, or negro citizen- 
ship. I once before hinted this of Mr. Lincoln in a public speech, 
and at Charleston he defied me to show that there was any differ- 
ence between his speeches in the North and in the South, and that 
they were not in strict harmony. I will now call your attention to 
two of them, and 3'ou can then say whether you would be apt to be- 
lieve that the same man ever uttered both. In a speech in reply to 
me at Chicago in July last, Mr. Lincoln, in speaking of the equal- 
ity of the negro with the white man, used the following language: — 

"I should like to know, if, taking this old Declaration of Independence, 
which declares that all men are equal upon principle, and making ex- 
ceptions to it, where will it stop ? If one man saj-s it does not mean a 
iit'gro, why may not another man say it does not mean another man? If 
the Declaration is not the truth, let us get the statute book in which we 
find it. and tear it out. Who is so bold as to do it? If it is not true, let us 
tear it out.'' 

You find that Mr. Lincoln there proposed that if the doctrine of 
the Declaration of Independence, declaring all men to be born equal, 
did not include the negro and put him on an equality with the white 
man, that we should take the statute book and tear it out. He 
there took the ground that the negro race is included in the Decla- 
ration of Independence as the equal of the white race, and that 
there could be no such thing as a distinction in the races, making 
one superior and the other inferior. I read now from the same 
speech : — 



:].14 GALESBTJRO DEBATE. OCTOBER 7. 1858. 

" My frii'iids [lie savs], 1 hiivfiletuiiu'd you about as long as I ch-nirt' to 
do, uiul I hn\o only to say, lot us discard all this quibbling about this man 
and the other man, this race and that race and thf othor race bring 
infi'rior, and thfrcfore they must bo placed in an inferior position, dis- 
carding our standard that we have left us. Let us discard all these things, 
and unite as one |>eople throughout this land, until we shall ouce more 
stand up declaring that all men are created equal." 

[Voices: «< That's right," etc.] 

Vt's, I h:ive no doubt that you think it is right; but the Lincohi 
men down in Coles, Tazewell, and Sangamon counties (/d not think 
it is right. In the conclusion of the same speech, talking to the 
Chicago AJ)olitionists, he said: " I leave you, hoping that the lamp 
of liberty will burn in your bosoms until there shall no longer be a 
doubt that all men are created free and equal." [Voices: "Good, 
good. '] Well, you say good to that, and 3'ou are going to vote 
for Lincoln because he holds that doctrine. I will not blame j'ou 
for supporting him on that ground; but I will show you, in immedi- 
ate contrast with that doctrine, what Mr. Lincoln said down in 
Egypt in order to get votes in that locality, where they do not hold 
to such a doctrine. In a joint discussion between Mr. Lincoln and 
myself, at Charleston, 1 think, on the 18th of last month, Mr. Lin- 
coln, referring to this subject, used the following language: — 

" I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bring- 
ing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and 
black races; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters 
of the free negroes, or jurors, or qualifying them to hold ollice, or having 
them to marry with white people. I will say, in addition, that there is a 
physical dilference between the white and black races which, I suppose, 
will forever forbid the two races living together upon terms of social 
and political equality; and inasmuch as they cannot .so live, that while 
they do remain together there must be the position of superior and infe- 
rior, that I, as much as any other man, am in favor of the superior ix)sitiou 
being a.ssigned to the white man." 

[Voices : "Good for Mr. Lincoln."] 

Fellow-citizens, here you lind men hurrahing for Jjincoln, and 
saying that he did right, when in one part of the State he stood up 
for negro ecjiiality; and in another l)art, for political elfect, dis- 
carded the doctrine, and declared that theie always must be a. 
superior and inferior race. Abolitionists up North are expected and 
re«juired to vote for Lincoln because he goes for the C(piality of tin- 
races, holding that by the Declaration of Independence the white 
ni:in and the ni'gro were created e(pial. and endttwed by the <ii\ ini' 
law with that cMiuality, and <lowii Soutii lie tells the old Whigs, the 



DOUGLAS. 345 

KGutuckians, Virginiuns, and Tennesseeans, that there is a physical 
difference in the races, making one superior and the other inferior, 
and that he is in favor of maintaining the superiority of the white 
race over the negro. 

Now, how can you reconcile those two positions of Mr. Lincoln? 
He is to be voted for in the South as u pro-slavery man, and he is 
to be voted for in the North as an Abolitionist. Up here he thinks 
it is all nonsense to talk about a difference between the races, and 
says, that we must <' discard all quibbling about this race and that 
race and the other race being inferior, and therefore they must be 
placed in an inferior position." Down South he makes this " quib- 
ble " about this race and that race and the other race being inferior 
as the creed of his party, and declares that the negro can never be 
elevated to the position of the white man. You find that his politi- 
cal meetings are called by different names in different counties in 
the State. Here they are called Republican meetings; but in old 
Tazewell, where Lincoln made a speech last Tuesday, he did not 
address a RepuUican meeting, but "a grand rally of the Lincoln 
«UH." There are very few Republicans there, because Tazewell 
County is filled with old Virginians and Kentuckians, all of whom 
are Whigs or Democrats ; and if Mr. Lincoln had called an Aboli- 
tion or Republican meeting there, he would not get many votes. 

Go down into Egypt, and you find that he and his party are 
operating under an alias there, which his friend Trumbull has given 
them, in order that they may cheat the people. When I was down 
in Monroe County a few wrecks ago, addressing the people, I saw 
handbills posted announcing that Mr. Trumbull was going to speak 
in behalf of Lincoln ; and what do you think the name of his party 
was there? Why the '' Fn-e Democracy.'' Mr. Trumbull and Mr. 
Jehu Baker w^ere announced to address the Free Democracy of Mon- 
roe County, and the bill was signed, "Many Free Democrats." The 
reason that Lincoln and his party adopted the name of "Free Dem- 
ocracy" down there was because Monroe County has always been an 
old-fashioned Democratic county, and hence it was necessary to 
make the people believe that they were Democrats, sympathized 
with them, and were fighting for Lincoln as Democrats. 

Come up to Springfield, where Lincoln now lives and always has 
lived, and you find that the Convention of his party which assem- 
bled to nominate candidates for Legislature, who are expected to 
vote for him if elected, dare not adopt the name of Republican, but 
assembled under the title of "all opposed to the Democracy." 



340 OALESBURG DEBATE. OCTOBER 7. 1858. 

Thus you liu'l that Mr. Lincoln's creed cannot travel through even 
<MU' half of tlu' c'ountii's of this State, but that it changes its hues 
and becomes lighter and lighter as it travels from the extreme north, 
until it is nearly white when it reaches the extreme south end of the 
Stnte. 

I ask you, my friends, why cannot Republicans avow their prin- 
ciples alike everywhere? I would despise myself if I thought that 
I was procuring your votes by concealing my opinions, and 1)V avow- 
ing one set of principles in one part of liic State, and a ditfcrcnt set 
in another part. If I do not truly and honorably represent your 
feelings and principles, then I ought not to be your senator; and I 
will never conceal my opini(ms, or modify or change them a hair's 
breadth, in order to get votes. I will tell you that this Chicago 
doctrine of Ijincolns — declaring that the negro and the white man 
are made etjual by the Declaration of Independence and by Di- 
vine Providence — is a monstrous heresy. The signers of the 
Declaration of Independence never dreamed of the negro when they 
were writing tiuit document. The}' referred to white men, to men 
of Kuropc.'in birth and European descent, when they declared the 
ecjuality of all men. I see a gentleman there in the crowd shaking 
his head. Let me remind him that when Thomas Jeflerson wrote 
tliat document, he was the owner, and so continued until his death, 
of a large number of slaves. Did he intend to say in that Declara- 
tion tliat his negro slaves, which he held and treated as property, 
were created his equals b}' divine law, and that he was violating the 
law of God every day of his life by holding them as slaves? It 
must be borne in mind that when that Declaration was put forth, ever}' 
one of the thirteen Colonies, wereslavehokling Colonics, and every man 
who signed that instrument represented a slaveholding constituency. 
K»*collect, al.so, that no one of them emancipated his slaves, much less 
l)Ut them on an ecjuality with himself, after he signed the Declaration. 
On the contrary, they all continued to hold their negroes as slaves 
during the Revolutionary War. Now, do you believe — are 3'ou 
willing to have it said. — that ever}* man who signed the Declaration 
of Independ^-nce declared the negro his e(jual, and then was hypo- 
crite <!nough to continue to hold him as a slave, in violation of what 
he lielieved to be the divine law? And yet when 30U say that the 
Declaration of Indt'pendcnce includes the negro, you charge the 
signers of it with hypocrisy. 

I say to you. frankly, that in my opinion this (lovcrnini-nt was 
made Ity our fathers on the white basis. It was made by white men 
for the benefit of white men anil thi-ir posterity forever, and was 



DOUGLAS. :>A7 

intended to bo administered I)y white men in all time to come. But 
while I hold that under our Constitution and political sj'stem the 
negro is not a citizen, cannot be a citizen, and ought not to be a 
citizen, it does not follow by any means that he should be a slave. 
On the contrary, it does follow that the negro, as an inferior race, 
ought to possess every right, every privilege, every immunity, which 
he can safely exercise, consistent with the safety of the society in 
wiiich he lives. Humanity requires, and Christianity commands, 
that you shall extend to every inferior being, and every dependent 
being, all the privileges, immunities, and advantages which can be 
granted to them, consistent with the safety of society. If you ask 
me the nature and extent of these privileges, I answer that that is a 
question which the people of each State must decide for themselves. 
Illinois has decided that question for herself. We have said that 
in this State the negro shall not be a slave, nor shall he be a citizen; 
Kentucky holds a diiferent doctrine. New York holds one dift'erent 
from either, and Maine one different from all. Virginia, in her 
polic}' on this question, differs in many respects from the others, 
and so on, until there are hardl}' two States whose policy is exactly 
alike in regard to the relation of the white man and the negro. Nor 
can you reconcile them and make them alike. Ea(!h State must do 
as it pleases. Illinois had as much right to adopt the policy which 
we have on that subject as Kentuck}' had to adopt a ditlerent policy. 
The great principle of this Government is, that each State has the 
right to do as it pleases on all these questions, and no other State or 
power on earth has the right to interfere with us, or complain of us 
mereh' because our system differs from theirs. In the Compromise 
Measures of 1850, Mr. Clay declared that this great principle ought 
to exist in the Territories as well as in the States, and I reasserted 
his doctrine in the Kansas and Nebraska l)ill in 1854. 

DRED SCOTT DECISION AND THE TERRITORIES. 

But Mr. Lincoln cannot be made to understand, and those who are 
determined to vote for him, no matter whether he is a pro-slavery man 
in the South and a negro-equality advocate in the North, cannot be 
made to understand how it is that in a Territory the people can do 
as they please on the slavery question under the Dred Scott decision. 
Let us see whether I cannot explain it to the satisfaction of all im- 
partial men. Chief Justice Taney has said, in his opinion in the 
Dred Scott case, that a negro slave, being property, stands on an 
equiil footing with other property, and that the owner may carry 
them into United States territory the same as he does other property. 



34S r:ALESlU"R(i DICHATK. OCTOBER 7, 1858.. 

Suppiisi" liny two of you, nt'i[;lil>ors, should conclude to go to 
K:iMs:is, one c:irryin»r $1UU,U(MI worth (»f ne^ro Bhives, und the other 
$1(HMI()(I worth of mixed merchandise, including (piiintities of 
liciuore. Vou both agree that under that decision you may carry 
your property to Kansas; but when you get it there, the merchant 
\\\ut is possessed of the licpjors is met I)y the Maine li(iuor law, 
whicli prohiliits the sale or usf of his property, and the owner of the 
slaves is met by c([ually untricndly li'<xislation, wliich makes his 
jiroperty worthless after he gi'ts it there. What is the right to 
cairy your property into the Territory worth to either, when un- 
friendly legislation in the Territory renders it worthless after you 
get it there? The slaveholder when he gets his slaves there finds 
that there is no local law to piotect liiiu in holding them, no slave 
code, no police regulation maintaining and supporting him in his 
right, and he discovers at once that the ab.sence of such friendly 
legislation excludes his property from the Territory just as irresisti- 
lily as if there was a positive Constitutional prohibition exclud- 
ing it. 

Thus you find it is with any kind of property in a Territory: It 
deiH-nds for its protection on the local antl numicipal law. If the 
people of a Territory want slavery, they make friendly legislation 
to introduce it; but if they do not want it, they withhold all pro- 
tection from it, and then it caiinot exist there. Such was the view 
taken on the subject by dilferent Southern men when the Nebraska 
bill pas.sed. See the speech of Mr. Orr, of South Carolina, the 
present speaker of the House of Representatives of Congress, made 
at that time; an<l there j'ou will find this whole doctrine argued out 
at full length. Head the speeelu-s of other Southern Congn'ssmen, 
Senalcirs and llepresenlatives, made in 18r)4, and you will find that 
they took the same view of the subject as Mr. Orr, — that slavery 
could never be forced on a people who did not want it. I hold that 
in this (-((untry there is no power on the face of the globe that can 
force any institution on an unwilling people. The great funda- 
mental principle of our (loverninent is that the people or each State 
and each Territory shall l»e left perfectly free to decide for them- 
selves what shall be the nature and character of their institutions. 
When this (lovernmeut was made, it was based on that principle. 
At the time of its formation there were twelve slaveholding Suites 
and one Fn-e State in this T'nion. 

Suppose this doctrine of .^Ir. l/incoln and the Hepuliliiaiis, of 
uniformity of laws «if all the States on the sul»ject of slavery, had 



DOUGLAS. 349 

prevailed; suppose Mr. Lincoln himself had been a member of the 
Convention which framed the Constitution, and that he had risen in 
that auijust body, and, addressing the father of his country, had 
said as he did at Springfield: "A house divided against itself can- 
not stand. 1 believe this Government cannot endure permanently, 
half Slave and half Free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved 
I do not expect the house to fall; but I do expect it will cease to be 
divided. It will become all one thing or all the other." What do 
you think would have been the result? Suppose he had made that 
Convention believe that doctrine, and they had acted upon it, what 
do you think would have been the result? Do you believe that the 
one Free State would have outvoted the twelve slaveholding States, 
and thus abolished slavery? On the contrary, would not the twelve 
slaveholding States have outvoted the one Free State, and under "his 
doctrine have fastened slavery by an irrevocable constitutional pro- 
vision upon every inch of the American Republic? 

Thus you see that the doctrine he now advocates, if proclaimed 
at the beginning of the Government, would have established slavery 
everywhere throughout the American continent ; and are 3"ou will- 
ing, now that we have the majority section, to exercise a power 
which we never would have submitted to when we were in the min- 
orit}' ? If the Southern States had attempted to control our insti- 
tutions, and make the States all Slave, when they had the power, I 
ask, Would you have submitted to it ? If you would not, are you 
willing, now that we have become the strongest under that great 
l)rinciple of self-government that allows each State to do as it 
l)leases, to attempt to control the Southern institutions ? Then, my 
friends, I say to j'ou that there is but one path of peace in this 
llepublic, and that is to administer this Government as our fathers 
made it, divided into Free and Slave States, allowing each State 
to decide for itself whether it wants slavery or not. If Illinois will 
settle the slavery question -for herself, and mind her own business 
and let her neighbors alone, we will be at peace with Kentucky and 
every other Southern State. If every other State in the Union will 
do the same, there will be peace between the North and the South, 
and in the whole Union. 



r.u GALKSliUlUi IJEBATE. DCTOliER 7, 1SJ8. 

MK. LINCOLN'S KKPLY. 

Mv Fellow-Citizens: A verj' large portion of the speech which 
Judj;o I>ouj:!:is has addressed to you has previously been delivered 
and put in print. 1 do not mean that for a hit upon the Jiulge at 
all. If I had not been interrupted, I was going to say lliat such an 
answer as 1 was ai)le to make to a. ver}' large jwrtion of it, had al- 
ready been more than once made and published. There has been 
an opportunity alForded to the pulilic to see our respective views 
upon the topics discussed in a large portion of the speech which he 
has just delivered. I make these remarks for tiie purpose of excus- 
ing myself for not passing over the entire ground that the Judge 
has traversed. I however desire to take up some of the points that 
he has attended to, and ask your attention to them, and 1 shall fol- 
low him backwards upon some notes which I have taken, reversing 
the order, by beginning where he concluded. 

The Jutlge has alhuled to the Declaration of Independence, and 
insisted that negroes are not included in that Declaration; and that 
it is a slander upon the framers of that instrument to suppose that 
negroes were meant therein; and he asks you: Is it possiiilc to be- 
lieve that ]Mr. Jelferson, who penned the immortal jjaper, could 
have supposed himself applying the language of that instrument to 
the negro race, and yet held a portion of that race in slavery? 
Would he not at once have freed them? 

1 only have to remark upon this part of the Judge's speech 
(an<l that, too, very brietly, for I shall not detain myself, or you, 
ujK»n that point for any great length of time.) that I believe the 
entire records of the world, from the date of the Declaration of In- 
dependence up to within three years ago, may be searched i.i vain 
for one single affirmation, from one single man, that the negro was 
not included in the Declaration of Independence ; I think I may 
defy Judge Douglas to show that he ever said so, that Washing- 
ton ever said so, that any President ever said so, that any 
member of Congress ever said so, or that any living man upon 
the whole earth ever said so, until the necessities of the present 
policy of the Democratic party, in regard to slavery, had to in- 
vent that affirmation. Ami I will reuiiiid .Judge J)ouglas and this 
audience th.it while Mr Jefferson was tin' owner of slaves, as un- 
doubtedly he was, in speaking upon this very subject he used the 
strong language that " he trembled for his country when lie re- 
membered that God was just ;" and I will offer the highest prem- 



LINCOLN. 351 

ium in my power to Judge Douglas if he will show that he, in all 
his life, ever uttered a sentiment at all akin to that of Jefferson. 

The next thiiig to which I will ask your iittention is the Judge's 
comments upon the fact, as he assumes it to bo, that we cannot call 
our public meetings as Republican meetings; and he instances 
Tazewell County as one of the places where the friends of Lincoln 
have called a public meeting and have not dared to name it a Re- 
publican meeting. He instances Monroe County as another, where 
Judge Trumbull and Jehu Baker addressed the persons whom the 
Judge assumes to be the friends of Lincoln, calling them the " Free 
Democracy." I have the honor to inform Judge Douglas that he 
spoke in that very County of Tazewell last Saturday, and I was 
there on Tuesday last; and when he spoke there, he spoke under a 
call not venturing to use the word " Democrat." [Turning to Judge 
Douglas:] What think you of this? 

So, again, there is another thing to which I would ask the 
Judge's attention upon this subject. In the contest of 1856 his 
party delighted to call themselves together as the "National De- 
mocracy; " but now, if there should be a notice put up anywhere for 
a meeting of the "National Democracy," Judge Douglas and his 
friends would not come. They would not suppose themselves in- 
vited. They would understand that it was a call for those hateful 
postmasters whom he talks about. 

Now a few words in regard to these extracts from speeches of 
mine which Judge Douglas has read to you, and which he supposes 
are in very great contrast to each other. Those speeches have been 
before the public for a considerable time, and if they have any in- 
consistency in them, if there is any conflict in them, the public 
have been able to detect it. When the Judge says, in speaking on 
this subject, that I make speeches of one sort for the people of the 
northern end of the State, and of a different sort for the southern 
people, he assumes that I do not understand that my speeches will 
1)0 put in print and read north and south. I knew all the while that 
the speech that I made at Chicago, and the one I made at Jones- 
boro, and the one at Charleston, would all be put in print, and all the 
reading and intelligent men in the community would see them and 
know all about my opinions. And I have not supposed, and do not 
now suppose, that there is any conflict whatever between them. 

But the Judge will have it that if we do not confess that there 
is a sort of inequality between the white and the black races which 
justifies us in making them slaves, we must then insist that there is 



352 tiAI,i:SHUR(J DKHATE. OCTOHEU 7, 1858. 

a di'jjjrt'f of tMiuality tliat rrtjuiivs us to luakt* them our wives. 
Nnw. 1 have all tlu- while taken a l»roacl dislinelion in regard to that 
uiatttr; and that is all there is in these different speeches which he 
arrays here; and the entire reading of either of the Ki)eeehes will 
show that that distinction was made. Perhaps liy taking two parts 
of the same speech he could have got up as much of a conflict 
as the one he has found. I have all the while maintained that in 
so far as it should be insisted that there was an equality between 
the white an<l black races that should produce a perfect social and 
polilic^il eijuality, it was an impossibility. This you have seen in 
my printed speeches, and with it I have said that in their rii^ht to 
"life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," as proclainuvl in that 
old Declaration, the inferior races are our equals. And these declara- 
tions I hive constantly made in reference to the abstract moral 
(juestion, to contemplate and consi<ler when we are legislating about 
any new country which is not already cursed with the actual presence 
of the evil, — shivery. 

I have never manifested any impatience with the necessities that 
spring from the actual presence of black people amongst us, and 
the actual existence of slavery amongst us where it does already 
exist; but I have insisted that, in legislating for new countries 
where it does not exist, there is no just rule other than that of 
moral and abstract right ! With reference to those new countries, 
those maxims as to the right of a people to " life, liberty, and the 
pursuit of happiness" were the just rules to be constantly referred 
to. There is no misunderstanding this, except by men interested to 
misunderstand it. I t.ike it that I have to address an iulelligt'nt 
and reailing community, who will peruse what 1 say, weigh it, and 
then judge whether I advance improper or unsound views, or 
whether I advance hypocritical, and deceptive, and contrary views 
in ditrerent portions of the country. 1 b.'lieve myself to be guilty 
of no such tiling as the latter, though, of course, I cannot claim 
that I am entirely free from all error in the opinions I advance. 

TIIK TWO I'AHTIKS. 

The Judge has also dct.-iint'd us a while in regard to the distinc- 
tion between his party an<l our party. Ilis he assinnes to iic a 
national i)arty, — ours a sei'tional one. He does this in asking the 
(piestion whether this country has any interest in the maintenance of 
the Ilejjuldican party? He assumes that our party is altogether 
wc'ctional, — that the party to which he adheres is national; and the 



LINCOLN. 353 

argument is, that no party can be a rightful part}' — can be based 
upon rightful principles — unless it can announce its principles 
everywhere. I presume that Judge Douglas could not go into Rus- 
sia and announce the doctrine of our national Democrac}"; he could 
not denounce the doctrine of kings and emperors and monarchies in 
Russia ; and it may be true of this country that in some places we 
may not be able to proclaim a doctrine as clearly as the truth of 
Democracy, because there is a section so directly opposed to it that 
they will not tolerate us in doing so. Is it the true test of the 
soundness of a doctrine that in some places people won't let you 
proclaim it ? Is that the way to test the truth of any doctrine ? 
Why, 1 understood that at one time the people of Chicago would not 
let Judge Douglas preach a certain favorite doctrine of his. I com- 
mend to his consideration the question, whether he takes that as a 
test of the unsoundness of what he wanted to preach? 

There is another thing to which I wish to ask attention for a 
little while on this occasion. What has always been the evidence 
brought foinvard to prove that the Republican party is a sectional 
party? The main one was that in the Southern portion of the Union 
the people did not let the Republicans proclaim their doctrines 
amongst them. That has been the main evidence brought forward, 
— that the}' had no supporters, or substantially none, in the Slave 
States. The South have not taken hold of our principles as we an- 
nounce them ; nor does Judge Douglas now grapple with those prin- 
ciples. 

We have a Republican State Platform, laid down in Springfield in 
June last, stating our position all the way through the questions 
before the country. We are now far advanced in this canvass. 
Judge Douglas and I have made perhaps fort}^ speeches apiece, 
and we have now for the fifth time met face to face in debate, 
and up to this day I have not found either Judge Douglas or any 
friend of his taking hold of the Republican platform, or laying his 
finger upon anything in it that is wrong. I ask j'ou to recollect that. 
Judge Douglas turns away from the platform of principles to the 
fact that he can find people somewhere who will not allow us to an- 
nounce those principles. If he had great confidence that our prin- 
ciples were wrong, he would take hold of them and demonstrate them 
to be wrong. But he does not do so. The only evidence he has of 
their being wrong is in the fact that there are people who won't 
allow us to preach them. I ask again, is that the way to test the 
soundness of a doctrine? 
23 



354 i.AI.KSlirUd l)Ki5ATi:. OlToliEK 7. 1838. 

I ask his attention also to the fact that by the rule of national- 
ity he is himself fast becoming sectional. 1 ask his attention to 
the fact that his speeches woiikl not go as current now south of the 
Ohio Kiver as they have formerly gone there. I ask his attention 
to the fact that he felicitates himself to-day that all the Democrats 
of the Free States are agreeing with him, while he omits to tell us 
that the Democrats of any Slave State agree with him. If he has 
not thought of this, I commend to his consideration the evidence in 
his own declaration, on this day. of his becoming sectional too. I 
see it rapidly approaching, ^\'hatever may be the result of this 
ephemeral contest between Judge Douglas and myself, I see the day 
rapidly approaching when his i)illof sectionalism, which he has been 
thrusting down the throats of Republicans for years past, will be 
crowded down his own throat. 

THE COMPROMISE OF 1850. 

Now, in regard to what Judge Douglas said (in the beginning of 
his speech) about the Compromise of 1850 containing the principle 
of the Nebraska bill, although I have often presented my views 
upon that subject, yet as I have not done so in this canvass, I will, 
if you please, detain you a little with them. I have always main- 
tained, so far as I was able, that there was nothing of the principle 
of the Nebraska bill in the Compromise of 1850 at all, — nothing 
whatever. Where can you find the principle of the Nebraska bill in 
that Compromise? If anywhere, in the two pieces of the Compro- 
mise organizing the Territories of New Mexico and Utah. It was 
expressly provided in these two Acts that when they came to be ad- 
mitted into the Union, they should be admitted with or without 
slavery, as they should choose, by their own constitutions. Noth- 
ing was said in either of those Acts as to what was to be done in 
relation to slavery during the Territorial existence of those Terri- 
tories, while Henry Clay constantly made the declaration (Judge 
Douglas recognizing him as a leader) that, in his opinion, the old 
Mexican lawB would control that (luestion during the Territorial ex- 
istence, and that these old Mexican laws excluded slavery. 

How can that be used as a principle for declaring that during 
the Territorial existence as well as at the time of framing the consti- 
tution, the people, if you please, might have slaves if they wanted 
them? 1 am not discussing the question whether it is right or 
wrong; but how are the New Mexican and Utah laws patterns for 
the Nebraska bill? I maintain that the .organization of Utah and 



LINCOLN. a.-) 5 

New Mexico did not establish a geueral principle at all. It bad uo 
feature of establisbing a geueral principle. Tbe Acts to wbicb 1 
bave refeiTed were a part of a general system of Compromises. 
Tbey did not lay down wluit Avas proposed as a regular policy for 
tbe Territories, only an agreement in this particular case to do in 
tbat way, because otber things were done that were to be a compen- 
sation for it. They were allowed to come in in tbat shape, because 
in another way it was paid for, — considering tbat as a part of tbat 
system of measures called the Compromise of 1850, which finally 
included half-a-dozen Acts. It included tbe admission of California 
as a Free State, wbicb was kept out of the Union for half a year be- 
cause it had formed a free constitution. It included tbe settlement 
of the boundary of Texas, wbicb had been undefined before, which 
was in itself a slavery question; for if you pushed the line farther 
west, you made Texas larger, and made more slave territory ; while, 
if you drew tbe line toward the east, yon narrowed the bound- 
ary and diminished the domain of slavery, and by so much in- 
creased free territory. It Included the abolition of the slave trade 
in tbe District of Columbia. It included tbe passage of a new 
Fugitive-Slave law. 

All these things were put together, and though passed in sepa- 
rate Acts, were nevertheless, in legislation (as tbe speeches of tbe 
time will show), made to depend upon each otber. Each got votes, 
with the understanding that tbe otber measures were to pass, and 
b}' this system of Compromise, in tbat series of measures, those two 
bills — tbe New Mexico and Utah bills — were passed: and I say 
for that reason they could not be taken as models, framed upon 
their own intrinsic principle, for all future Territories. And I have 
tbe evidence of this in tbe fact that Judge Douglas, a year after- 
ward, or more than a 5-ear afterward, perhaps, when be first intro- 
duced bills for the purpose of framing new Territories, did not 
attempt to follow these bills of New Mexico and Utah; and even 
when be introduced this Nebraska bill, I think you will discover 
tbat be did not exactly follow them. But I do not wish to dwell at 
great length upon this branch of the discussion. My own opinion 
is, that a thorough investigation will show most plainly that the 
New Mexico and Utah bills were part of a system of compromise, 
and not designed as patterns for future Territorial legislation ; and 
that this Nebraska bill did not follow them as a pattern at all. 

Tbe Judge tells us, in proceeding, that he is opposed to making 
any odious distinction between Free and Slave States. I am alto- 



35C) tiAi.K>r.rK<; dkiiate. (XTohkr t. iv-,'^ 

getlur unawart' thai the Rfpultlifuns aiv in favor of inakiiiir any 
otliou> liisliiu-tions Ix'twffii tin- Vrvv and Slave States. Miit there is 
still a difference, I think, between Judge Douglas and the Repub- 
licans in this. I suppose that the real difference between Judge 
Douglas and his friends, and the Republicans on the contrary is, 
that the Judge is not in favor of making any difference between 
slavery and liberty, that he is in favor of eradicaling, of press- 
ing out of view, the (luestions of preference in this country for free 
or shive institutions; and consequently every sentiment he utters 
discards the idea that there is any wrong in slavery. Everything 
that emanates from him or liis coadjutors in their course of policy 
carefully excludes tlie thought that there is anything wrong in 
slavery. All their arguments, if you will consiiler them, will be 
seen to exclude the thought that there is anything whatever wrong 
in slavery. If you will take the Judges speeches, and select the 
short and pointed sentences expressed by him, — us his declaration 
that he "don't care whether slavery is voted up or down," you will 
see at once that this is perfectly logical, if you do not admit that 
slavery is wr(Mig. If you do admit that it is wrong. Judge 
Douglas caunot logically say he dont care whether a wrong is 
voted up or down. 

Judge Douglas declares that if any community want slavery, 
they have a right to have it. He can say that logically, if he says 
that there is no wnjng in slavery ; but if you admit that there is 
a wrong in it, he cannot logically say that anybody has a right to 
do wrong. He insists that, upon the score of etiuality, the owners 
of slaves and owners of property — of horses and every other sort 
of property — should be alike, and hold them alike in a new Terri- 
tory. That is perfectly logical if the two species of property are 
alike and are equally founded in right. Hut if you admit that one 
of them is wrong, you cannot institute any etjuality between right 
and wrong. And from this diU'erence of sentiment, — the belief 
on the part of one thai the institution is wrong, and a policy 
springing from that belief which looks to the arrest of the enlarge- 
ment of that wrong; and this other sentiment, that it is no wrong. 
and a policy sprung from that sentiment, which will tolerate no 
idea of preventing the wrong from growing larger, and looks to 
there never being an end of it thnjugh all the existence of things, 
— arises the real dilferenee between Judge Douglas and his friends 
on the one hand, and the Republicans on the other. 

Now, I confess myself as belonging to that class in the country 



LINCOLN. 357 

who contemplate slavery as a moral, social, and political evil, 
having clue regard for its actual existence amongst us and the 
difficulties of getting rid of it in an}' satisfactory way, and to all 
the constitutional obligations which have been thrown about it; but, 
nevertheless, desire a policy that looks to the prevention of it as a 
wrong, and looks hopefully to the time when as a wrong it may 
come to an end. 

Judge Douglas has again, for, I believe, the fifth time, if not 
the seventh, in my presence, reiterated his charge of a conspiracy 
or combination between the National Democrats and Kepul)licans. 
What evidence Judge Douglas has upon this sul)jDct I know not, 
inasmuch as he never favors us with any. 

I have said upon a former occasion, and I do not choose to 
suppress it now, that I have no objection to the division in the 
Judge's party. He got it up himself. It was all his and their 
work. He had, I think, a great deal more to do with the steps that 
led to the Lecompton Constitution than Mr. Buchanan had ; though 
at last, when they reached it, they quarreled over it, and their 
friends divided upon it. I am very free to confess to Judge 
Douglas that I have no objection to the division ; but I defy the 
Judge to show any evidence that I have in any way promoted that 
division, unless he insists on being a witness himself in merely 
saying so. I can give all fair friends of Judge Douglas here to 
understand exactly the view that Republicans take in regard to 
that division. Do n't you remember how two years ago the oppo- 
nents of the Democratic party were divided between Fremont and 
Fillmore? I guess you do. Any Democrat who remembers that 
division will remember also that he was at the time very glad of 
it, and then he will be able to see all there is between the National 
Democrats and the Republicans. What we now think of the two 
divisions of Democrats, you then thought of the Fremont and Fill- 
more divisions. That is all there is of it. 

THOSE SPRINGFIELD RESOLUTIONS. 

But if the Judge continues to put forward the declaration that 
there is an unholy and unnatural alliance between the Republican 
and the National Democrats, I now want to enter my protest against 
receiving him as an entirely competent witness upon that subject. 
I want to csdl to the Judge's attention an attack he made upon me 
in the first one of these debates, at Ottawa, on the 21st of August. 
In order to fix extreme Abolitionism upon me. Judge Douglas read 



358 t.ALKSlillM; DKliATi:, OCTOBER T, la-.S. 

a Sft of ivsolulious which he ik-clured had beoii itasseil by a Uepnl)- 
licau StaU- C«u»v»iilion, in October. 1854, at Spriiiglielil, Illinois, 
anil be ilechirod 1 hail taken part iu that Convention. It turned 
out that althoii<:h a few men calling; themselves an anti-Xebraska 
State Convention had sat at Sprin<;lield about that time, yet neither 
did I take any part in it, nor did it pass the resi^lutions or any such 
resohitions as Judge Dcniglas read. So appaivnt had it become 
that the resolutions which he read had not been passed at Spring- 
field at all, nor by a State Convention in which I had taken part, 
that .seven days afterward, at Freeport, Judge Douglas declared 
that he had been misled by Charles H. Lanphier, editor of the 
St'it, li>ijisti,\ and Thr>mas L. Harris, member of Congress in that 
District, and he promised in that speech that when he went to 
Springfield be woulil investigate the matter. Since then Judge 
Douglas has been to Springfield, and I presume has made the in- 
vest iiration; but a m»>iith has pas.sed since he has been there, and, 
so far as I know, he has made no report of the result of his investi- 
gation. I have waited as I think a sullicient time for the report of 
that investigation, and I have some curiosity to see and hear it. 
A fraud, an alisolute forgery was committed, and the perpetration 
of it was traced to the three, — Lanphier, Harris, and Douglas. 
Whether it can be narrowed iu any way so as to exonerate any one 
of them, is what Judge Douglas s report would probably show. 

It is true that the set of resolutions read by Judge Douglas 
were puldished in the Illinois Statr Riipxter on the 16th of October, 
1S54, as being the resolutions of an anti-Nebraska Convention 
which ha<I .sat in that .same niontli of Octol»er, at Springfield. But 
it is also tnu' that the publication in the Rxpst,,- was a forgery 
then, and the (piestion is still behind, which of the three, if not 
all of them, committed that forgery? The idea that it was done 
by mistake, is alisurd. The article in the Illinois Stutr R,,fisf, r 
contains part of the real procee<lings of that Springlield Convention, 
showing tliat tlic writer of the article had the real proceedings 
before him, ami purposely threw out the genuine resolutions passed 
l)y the Convention, and fraudulently sul)stitute(l the others. lian- 
phier then, as now. was the editttr of the liKjlsti r, so that there 
seems to b<' but little room for his escape. Hut then it is to be 
borne in mind that Lanphier had less interest in the object of that 
forgery than either of tin- other two. The main object of that 
forgerv at that time was to lieat Yates and elect Harris to Con- 
gress, and that object was known to i)e exceedingly dear to Judge 



LINCOLN. 35<r 

Douglas lit that time. Harris and Douglas were both in Springfield 
when the Convention was in session, and although they both left 
before the fraud appeared in the Register, subsequent events show 
that they have both had their eyes fixed upon that Convention. 

The fraud having been apparently successful upon the occasion, 
both Harris and Douglas have more than once since then been 
attempting to put it to new uses. As the fisherman's wife, whose 
drowned husl)and was brought home with his body full of eels, 
said when she was asked, "What was to be done with him? " 
" Tahe the eels out and set him again,'' so Harris and Douglas have 
shown a disposition to take the eels out of that stale fraud l)}- 
which they gained Harris's election, and set the fraud again more 
than once. On the 9th of July, 185G, Douglas attemped a repeti- 
tion of it upon Trumbull on the floor of the Senate of the United 
States, as will appear from the Appendix of the Congressional Globe 
of that date. 

On the 9th of August, Harris attempted it again upon Norton 
in the House of Representatives, as will appear by the same docu- 
ment, — the Appendix to the Congressional Globe of that date. 
On the 21st of August last, all three — Lanphier, Douglas, and 
Harris — reattempted it upon me at Ottawa. It has been clung 
to and played out again and again as an exceedingly high trump 
by this blessed trio. And now that it has been discovered publicly 
to be a fraud, we find that Judge Douglas manifests no surprise 
at it at all. He makes no complaint of Lanphier, who must have 
known it to be a fraud from the beginning. He, Lanphier, and 
Harris are just as cozy now, and just as active in the concoction 
of new schemes as thej^ were before the general discover}- of this 
fraud. Now, all this is very natural if the}' are all alike guilty in 
that fraud, and it is very unnatural if any one of them is innocent. 
Lanphier perhaps insists that the rule of honor among thieves does 
not quite require him to take all upon himself, and consequently 
my friend Judge Douglas finds it difficult to make a satisfactory 
report upon his investigation. But meanwhile the three are agreed 
that each is "« most honorable man." 

Judge Douglas requires an indorsement of his truth and honor by 
a re-election to the United States Senate, and he makes and reports 
against me and against Judge Trumbull, day after day, charges 
which we know to be utterly untrue, without for a moment seeming to 
thmt that this one unexplained fraud, which he promised to inves- 
tigate, will be the least drawback to his claim to belief. Harris 



liUU <iAI.KS)UK(. DKUATK. < t( 'I'dllKK 7. 1.S5S. 

ditto. Ill* askj>i :i rt'-election to tlu- lowt-r IIoum- «»f Conixress with- 
out siH'iiiiu«i to renuMubi'i" :it all that lu* is involved in this dishonor- 
aide fraud. The Illinois Slnti Jiiyistir, edited l»y Lanphier. then, 
as now. the central «)rj;an of both Harris and I)ou»rlas. continues to 
tUn the public ear with these iissertions, without seeming to suspect 
tliat tliev an' at all lacking in title to l»elief. 

After all, the iiuestion still rei-urs upon us. How dlil that Iraud 
originally get into the »S7((^ Jui/isti r.' L;iiiphier then, as now, was 
the editor of that paper. lianphier knows, Jianphier cannot be 
ignorant of how and by whom it was originally concocted. Can he 
Ite induced to tell. or. if lie has told, can Judge Douglas be induced 
to tell how it originally was concocted? It ma\' be true that 
Lanphier insists that the two men for whose benefit it was originally 
devised, shall at least bear their sh.ire of it I How that is, I 
do not know, and while it remains unexplained. I hope to be par- 
doned if I insist that the mere fact of Judge Douglas making 
charges against Truuil)ull and luyself is not (juite suHicieiit evidence 
to establish them ! 

I.l.NCoL.NS llllltli INTKlUUXiAToR'i . 

"While we were at I'rceport, in one of these joint discussions, I 
answered certain interrogatories which Judge Douglas had pro- 
pounded to me, and then in turn propounded some to him. which he 
in a sort of way answered. The third one of these interrogatories I 
have with me, and wish now to make some coinuients u]>on it. It was 
in these words: " If the Supreme Court of the United States shall 
decide that States cannot exclude slavery from their limits, are 
you in favor of acquiescing in. adopting, and following such de- 
cision as a rule of political action ? " 

To this interrogatory Judge Douglas maile no answer in any just 
sense of the w<»rd. He contented himself with sneering at the 
thought that it was possilde for the Supreme Court ever to make 
such a decision. He sneered at me for propounding the interroga- 
tor}'. I had not propounded it without some reflection, and I wish 
now to address to this audience .some remarks upon it. 

Hi the second clause of the sixth article. I believe it is. of the 
Constitution of the Fnited States, we liml the following language: 
" This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be 
made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall 
be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the su- 
preme law of the land ; and the judges in every State shall be 



LINCOLN. 361 

bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State 
to the contrary, notwithstanding." 

The essence of the Dred Scott case is compressed into the sentence 
which I will now read : "Now, as we have already said in an earlier 
part of this opinion, upon a different point, the right of property in 
a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution." 
I repeat it, " The right of property in a slave is distinctly and ex- 
pressly affirmed in the Constitution." 

What is it to be ^UiffinmcV in the Constitution? Made firm in 
the Constitution, — so made that it cannot be separated from the 
Constitution without breaking the Constitution ; durable as the Con- 
stitution, and part of the Constitution. Now, remembering the 
provision of the Constitution which I have read; affirming that 
that instrument is the supreme law of the land; that the Judges 
of every State shall be bound by it, any law or constitution of any 
State to the contrary notwithstanding; that the right of property in a 
slave is affirmed in that Constitution, is made, formed into, and 
cannot be separated from it without breaking it; durable as the in- 
strument; part of the instrument; — what follows as a short and 
even syllogistic argument from it? I think it follows, and T submit 
to the consideration of men capable of arguing, whetlier as I state 
it, in syllogistic form, the argument has any fault in it? 

Nothing in the Constitution or laws of any State can destroj^ a 
right distinctly and expressl}' affirmed in the Constitution of the 
United States. 

The right of propertj- in a slave is distinctly and expressly af- 
firmed in the Constitution of the United States. 

Therefore, nothing in the Constitution or laws of any State can 
destroy the right of property in a slave. 

I believe that no fault can be pointed out in that argument; as- 
suming the truth of the premises, the conclusion, .so far as I have 
capacity at all to understand it, follows inevitably. There is a fault 
in it as I think, but the fault is not in the reasoning : the false- 
hood in fact is a fault in tlie premises. 

I believe that the right of property in a slave ix not di-stinctly and 
expressly affirmed in the Constitution, and Judge Douglas tliinks it 
is. I believe that the Supreme Court and the advocates of that de- 
cision may search in vain for the place in the Constitution where the 
right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly Mtfirmcd. I 
say, therefore, that T think one of the premises is not true in fact. 
But it is true with Judge Douglas. It is true with the Supreme 



3G2 t.Al.ESUriK; DKHATE. UCTOBEIl 7. 1S:>S. 

Court who pronounced it. Tliev are estopped from dcnyinfj it, and 
iK-iiii.' t•^^t(,ll>l)t•(l fniui tU'iiyinj^ it tlie fonclusioii follows that, tlie 
Constitution of the Tuited States bein*:; the siiprt-ine hiw. no eon- 
stitntinii or law can iiitrrfi-n- witli it. It being affirmed in the deci- 
sion that the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly 
affirmed in the Constitution, the conclusion inevitably follows that 
no State law or constitution can destroy that right. 

I tlun -a\ to Jiulfre Douglas and to all others, that I think it will 
take a ItfttiT answiT than a sneer to show that those who have said 
that tlie right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly af- 
firmed in the Constitution, are not prepared to show that no consti- 
tution or law can destroy that right. I say I believe it will take a far 
better argument than a mere sneer to show to the minds of intelli- 
gent men that whoever has so said, is not prepared, whenever public 
sentiment is so far advanced as to justify it, to say the other. This 
is but an opinion, and the opinion of one very humble man; but it 
is my opinion that the Dred Scott decision, as it is. never would have 
Ix'en made in its present form if the party that made it had not 
been sustained previously by the elections. My own opinion is, that 
the new Dred Scott decision, deciding against the right of the people 
of the States to exclude slavery will never be made, if that party is 
not sustained by the elections. I believe, further, that it is just as 
sure to be made as to-morrow is to come, if that party shall be sus- 
tained. 

1 have said, upon a former occasion, aud I repeat it now, that 
the course of argument that Judge Douglas makes use of upon this 
subject (I charge not liis motives in this;, is preparing the public 
mind for that new Dred Scott decision. I have asked him again to 
point out to me the reasons for his lirst adherence to the Dred Scott 
decision as it is. I have turned his attention to the fact that 
General Jackson differed with him in regard to the political obliga- 
tion of a Supreme Court decision. I have asked his attention to 
the fact that Jefferson ditfered with him in regard to the political 
oliligation (jf a Supreme Court decision. Jefferson said that " Judges 
are as honest as other men, and not more so." And he said, sub- 
stantially, that " whenever a free people should give up in absolute 
submission to any department of government, retaining for them- 
selves no appeal from it. their liberties were gone." 1 have asked 
his attention to the fact that the Cincinnati platform upon which he 
says he stands, disn'gards a timedionored decision of the Supreme 
Court, in denying the power of Congress to establish a National 



LINCOLN. 363 

Bank. I have asked his attention to the fact that he himself was 
one of the most active instruments at one time in breaking down 
the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois, because it had made a 
decision distasteful to liira, — a struggle ending in the remarkable 
circumstance of his sitting down as one of the new Judges who were 
to overslaugli that decision; getting his title of Judge in that 
very way. 

So far in this controversy I can get no answer at all from Judge 
Douglas upon these subjects. Not one can I get from him, except 
that he swells himself up and says, '• All of us who stand by the 
decision of the Supreme Court are the friends of the Constitution : 
all you fellows that dare question it in any way. are the enemies of 
the Constitution." Now, in this very devoted adherence to this 
decision, in opposition to all the great political leaders whom he has 
recognized as leaders, in opposition to his former self and history, 
there is something A-ery marked. And the manner in which he ad- 
heres to it. — not as being right upon the merits, as he conceives 
(because he did not discuss that at all), but as being absolutely 
obligatory upon every one, simpl}- because of the source from 
whence it comes, — as that which no man can gainsay, whatever it 
may be; this is another marked feature of his adherence to that 
decision. It marks it in this respect that it commits him to the 
next decision whenever it comes, as being as obligatory as this one, 
since he does not investigate it, and won't inquire whether this 
opinion is right or wrong. So he takes the next one without in- 
quiring whether it is right or wrong. He teaches men this 
doctrine, and in so doing prepares the public mind to take the next 
decision when it comes, without any inquiry. 

In this I think I argue fairly (without questioning motives at 
all) that Judge Douglas is most ingeniousl}^ and powerfully prepar- 
ing the pul)lic mind to take that decision when it comes; and not 
only so, but he is doing it in various other w^ays. In these general 
maxims about liberty, in his assertions that he "do n't care whether 
slavery is voted i;p or voted down ; " that "whoever wants slavery 
has a right to have it; " that " upon principles of equality it should 
be allowed to go everywhere;" that "there is no inconsistency be- 
tween free and slave institutions." In this he is also preparing 
(whether purposel}" or not) the way for making the institution of 
slavery national ! I repeat again, for I wish no misunderstanding, 
that I do not charge that he means it so; but I call upon your 
minds to inquire, if you were going to get the best instrument you 



3r.4 (JAl.KSi;rU(. DKIJATK. ocTuUKK 7, ISoS. 

could. :iuil tUi'U set it to work in the most ingciiiou.s way, to prepare 
till' public mind for this movement, operating in the Free States, 
will-re there is now an abliorrence of the institution of shivery, 
eotikl you find an instrument so eapahle of doinir it as Judge 
Doughis, or one enipl«>yi'(l in so apt a way to do it? 

I have said once before, and 1 will repeat it now, that Mr. 
Clay, when he was once answering an olijection to the Colonization 
Society, that it had a tendency to the ultimate emancipation of the 
slaves, said that "those who would repress all tendencies to liberty 
and ultimate emancipation must do more than put down the benevo- 
lent efforts of the Colonization Society, — they must go back to the 
era of our liberty and independence, and muzzle the cannon that 
thunders its annual joyous return ; they must blot out the moral 
lights around us; they must i)enetrate the human soul, and eradi- 
cate the light of reason and the love of lilterty! "" And I do think 
— I repeat, though I said it on a former occasion — that Judge 
Douglas and whoever, like him. teaches that the negro has no share, 
humble though it may be, in the Declaration of Indepemlence, is 
going back to the era of our liberty and independence, and, so far 
as in him lies, muzzling the cannon that thunders its annual joyous 
return; that he is blowing out the moral lights around us. when he 
contends that whoever wants slaves has a right to hold them : that 
he is penetrating, so far as lies in his power, the human soul, and 
eradicating the light of reason and the love of liberty, when he is in 
every possil)le way prejjarijig the public mind, by his vast influence, 
for making the institution of slavery perpetual and national. 

There is, my friends, only one other point to which t will call your 
attention for the remaining time that I have left me, and perhaps I 
shall not occupy the entire time that I have, as that one point may 
not take me clear through it. 

DOCOLAS'S SEVKNTII. .\.\I> LINCOLN'S FOl'RTIl. INTERRoci .\TnKV. 

Auioiig the interrogatories that Judge Douglas propounded to me 
at rreei>ort, there was one in about this language: " Are you oj*- 
posed to the ac(|uisition of any further territory to the United 
States, unless slavery shall first be prohibited therein ? " I an- 
swereil, as I thought, in this way, that I am not generally opposed 
to the acquisition of additional territory, and that I would support 
;i proposition for tlu- acfpiisition of additional territory according as 
my supporting it was or was not calculated If) aggravate this slavery 
question amongst us I tlien proposed to Judge Douglas another 



LIX(OLN. 365 

interrogatory, which was correlative to that; " Are 3-011 in favor of 
acquiring additional territory, in disregard of how it may attect us 
upon the slavery question? " Judge Douglas answered, — that is, in 
his own way he answered it. I believe that, although he took a 
good many words to answer it, it was a little more fully answered 
than any other. The substance of his answer was, that this country 
would continue to expand; that it would need additional territory; 
that it was as absurd to suppose that we could continue upon our 
present territory, enlarging in population as we are, as it would be 
to hoop a boy twelve 3ears of age, and expect him to grow to man's 
size without bursting the hoops. I believe it was something like 
that. Consequently, he was in favor of the acquisition of further 
territory as fast as we might need it, in disregard of how it might 
affect the slavery question. 

I do not say this as giving his exact language, but he said so 
substantially; and he would leave the question of slavery where the 
territory was acquired, to be settled by the people of the acquired 
territor}'. [Voice: " That s the doctrine."] Maj' be it is; let us 
consider that for a while. This will probably, in the run of things, 
become one of the concrete manifestations of this slavery question. 
If Judge Douglas's policy upon this question succeeds, and gets 
fairly settled down, until all opposition is crushed out, the next 
thing will be a grab for the territory of poor Mexico, an invasion of 
the rich lands of South America, then the adjoining islands will 
follow, each one of which promises additional slave-fields. And 
this question is to be left to the people of those countries for settle- 
ment. When we shall get Mexico, I do n't know whether the Judge 
will be in favor of the Mexican people that we get with it settling 
that question for themselves and all others; because we know the 
Judge has a great horror for mongrels, and I understand that the 
people of Mexico are most decidedly a race of mongrels. I under- 
stand that there is not more than one person there out of eight who 
is pure white, and I suppose from the Judge's previous declaration 
that when we get Mexico or any considerable portion of it, he 
will be in favor of these mongrels settling the question, which 
would bring him somewhat into collision with his horror of an in- 
ferior race. 

It is to be remembered, though, that this power of acquiring 
additional territory is a power confided to the President and Senate 
of the United States. It is a power not under the control of the 
representatives of the people any further than they, the President 



3GG (.AI.Ksr.riMi DKiiATi:. (K ToiiKi: ;, 1S.")8. 

;iiul the Seiiati', can Ix* considered the representatives of the people. 
Let me illustrate that l)v a case we have in our history. When we 
acquired the territory from Mexico in the Mexican war. the House 
of Representatives, composed of the immediate representatives of 
the people, all the time insisted that the territory thus to be ac- 
<|uired should be l»rou<rht in upon condition tiiat slavery should he 
forever prohil)ited therein, upon the terms anil in the language that 
slavery had been prohibited from coming into this country. That 
was insisted upon constantly and never failed to call forth an assur- 
ance that any territory thus acijuired should have that prohibition 
in it, so far as the House of Kepresentatives was concerned. But 
at hist the President and Senate acquired the territory without ask- 
ing the House of Representatives anything about it, and took it 
without that prohibition. The}' have the power of ac([uiring teiTi- 
tory without the immediate representatives of the people being 
called upon to say anything about it, and thus furnishing a very 
apt and powerful means of bringing new territory into the Union, 
and when it is once brought into the country, involving us anew in 
this slavery agitation. 

It is, therefore, as I think, a very important question for the 
consideration of the American people, whether the policy of bring- 
ing in additional territory, without considering at all how it will 
operate upon the safety of the Union in reference to this one great 
disturbing element in our national politics, shall V)e adopted as the 
policy of the country. You will bear in mind that it is to be ac- 
quired, according to the Judges view, as fast as it is needed, and 
the indefinite part of this proposition is that we have only Judge 
Douglas and his class of men to decide how fast it is needed. We 
have no clear and certain way of determining or demonstrating how 
fast territory is needed by the necessities of the country. W^hoever 
wants to go out filibustering, then, thinks that more territory is 
needed. Whoever wants wider slave-fields, feels sure that some 
additional territory is needed as slave-territory. Then it is as easy 
to show the necessity of additional slave-territory as it is to assert 
anything that is incapable of absolute demonstration. Whatever 
motive a man or a .set of men may have for making annexation of 
property or territory, it is very easy to assert, but much less easy to 
disprove, that it is necessary for the wants of the country. 

And now it only remains for me to say that T think it is a very 
grave (jucstion for tin* people of this Union to consider, whether, in 
view of the fact that this slaver}' question has been the only one 



LINCOLN. 367 

that has ever endangered our Republican institutions, the oul}- 
one that has ever threatened or menaced a dissolution of the 
Union, that has ever disturbed us in such a way as to make us fear 
for the perpetuity of our liberty, — in view of these facts, I think it 
is an exceedingly interesting and important question for this people 
to consider whether we shall engage in the polic}' of acquiring addi- 
tional territory, discarding altogether from our consideration, while 
obtaining new territory, the question how it may ati'ect us in regard 
to this, the only endangering element to our liberties and national 
greatness. 

The Judge's view has been expressed. I, in my answer to his 
question, have expressed mine. I think it will become an important 
and practical question. Our views are before the public. I am 
willing and anxious that they should consider them fully; that they 
should turn it about and consider the importance of the question, 
and arrive at a just conclusion as to whether it is or not wise in the 
people of this Union, in the acquisition of new territory, to consider 
whether it will add to the disturbance that is existing amongst us, 
— whether it will add to the one only danger that has ever threat- 
ened the perpetuity of the Union or our own liberties. I think it is 
extremely important that they shall decide, and rightly decide, that 
question before entering upon that policy. 

And now, my friends, having said the little I wish to say upon 
this Lead, whether I have occupied the whole of the remnant of my 
time or not, I believe I could not enter upon any new topic so as to 
treat it fully, without transcending my time, which T would not for 
n moment think of doing. I give way to Judge Douglas. 



MR. DOUGLAS'S REJOINDER. 

Gentlemen: The highest compliment you can pay me during 
the brief half -hour that I have to conclude is by observing a strict 
silence. I desire to be heard rather than to be applauded. 

The first criticism that Mr. Lincoln makes on my speech was 
that it was in substance what I have said everywhere else in the 
State where I have addressed the people. I wish I could only say 
the same of his speech. Why, the reason I complain of him is 
because he makes one speech north, and another south. Because he 
has one set of sentiments for the Abolition counties, and another set 
for the counties opposed to Abolitionism. My point of complaint 



[liiS (...\.Li:.">liL'K(; UEUATK. UC"i\)Bl!:U 7. 1808. 

a^jcainst him is that I canuot iiuluce him to hold up the same staucl- 
anl, to carry the saiin* dag, ia all parts of the State. He does not 
pretend, and no othir man will, that I have one set of principles for 
(ialesburjr, and another for Charleston. He does not pretend that 
I bold to one doctrine ia Chicago, and an opposite one in Jonesboro. 
I have jjrovcd that he has a ditFerent set of principles for each of 
the.se localities. All 1 asked of him was that he should deliver the 
speech that he has made here to-day in Coles County instead of 
in old Knox. It would have settled the question between us in that 
doubtful county. Here I understand him to reatlirm the doctrine of 
negro equality, and to assert that by the Declaration of Independ- 
ence the negro is declared equal to the white man. He tells you to- 
day that the negro was included in the Declaration of Independence 
when it a.ssertetl that till men were created equal. 

[Voices: •• We believe it. "] Very well. 

Mr. Lincoln asserts to-day, as he did at Chicago, -that the negro 
was included in that clause of the Declaration of Independence 
which says that all men wert* created ecjual, and endowed by the 
Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, lib- 
erty, and the pursuit of happiness. If the negro was made his 
equal and mine, if that e(iuality was establishetl by divine law, and 
was the negro's inalienable right, how came he to say at Charleston 
to the Kentuckians residing in that section of our State that the 
negro was physically inferior to the white man, belonged to an in- 
ferior race, and he was for keeping him always in that inferior con- 
dition? I wish you to bear these things in mind. At Charleston 
he said that the negro belonged to an inferior race, and that he was 
for keeping him in that inferior condition. There he gave the peo- 
ple U) understand that there was no moral (juestion involvetl, 
because, the inferiority, being established, it was only a question 
of degree, and not a question of right; here, to-day, ^instead of 
making it a cpiestion of degree, he makes it a moral question, says 
that it is a great crime to hold the negro in that inferior condition. 
[Voices: "He's right."] Is he right now, or was he right ia 
Charleston? [Voice: " Both."] He is right then, sir, in your 
estimatiijn. not Ijccause he is consistent, but because he can trim 
his priiK^iples any way, in any section, so as to secure votes. All 1 
desire of him is that he will declare the same principles in the south 
that he does in the north. 

Hut did you notice how he answered my position that a man 
should hold the same doctrines throughout the length ami breadth 



DOUGLAS. 369 

of this Republic? He said, "WouldJudge Douglas go to Russia 
and proclaim the same principles he does here? " I would remind 
hlni that Russia is not under the American Constitution. If Russia 
was a part of the American Republic, under our Federal Constitu- 
tion, and I was sworn to support the Constitution, I would maintain 
th^ same doctrine in Russia that I do in Illinois. The slaveholding 
States are governed by the same Federal Constitution as ourselves, 
and hence a man's principles, in order to be in harmony with the 
Constitution, must be the same in the South as they are in the 
North, the same in the Free States as they are in the Slave States. 
Whenever a man advocates one set of principles in one section, and 
another set in another section, his opinions are in violation of the 
spirit of the Constitution which he has sworn to support. When 
Mr. Lincoln went to Congress in 1847, and, laying his hand upon 
the Holy Evangelists, made a solemn vow, in the presence of high 
Heaven, that he would be faithful to the Constitution, what did he 
mean, — the Constitution as he expounds it in Galesburg, or the 
Constitution as he expounds it in Charleston? 

ANSWER ON THE SPRINGFIELD RESOLUTIONS. 

Mr. Lincoln has devoted considerable time to the circumstance 
that at Ottawa I read a series of resolutions as having been adopted 
at Springfield, in this State, on the 4th or 5th of October, 1854, 
which happened not to have been adopted there. He has used hard 
names; has dared to talk about fraud, about forgery, and has in- 
sinuated that there was a conspiracy between Mr. Lanphier, Mr. 
Harris, and myself to perpetrate a forgery. Now, bear in mind 
that he does not deny that these resolutions were adopted in a ma- 
jority of all the Republican counties of this State in that year; he 
does not deny that they were declared to be the platform of this « 
Republican party in the first Congressional District, in the second, 
in the third, and in many counties of the fourth, and that they thus 
became the platform of his part}' in a majority of the counties upon 
which he now relies for support; he does not deny the truthfulness 
of the resolutions, but takes exception to the sjjot on which they 
were adopted. He takes to himself great merit because he thinks 
they were not adopted on the right spot for me to use them against 
him, just as he was very severe in Congress upon the Government 
of his country when he thought that he had discovered that the 
Mexican war was not begun in the right s2)ot, and was therefore un- 
just. He tries very hard to make out that there is something very 
24 



:;70 GALKSlUKii DKHA'IK. orToliKK 7. la^SS. 

I'xtraunlinarv in tlu' plact* wIiimt tlu' tliiii<; was (lone, and not in tlii' 

tlUMii itSl'lf. 

I iicviT lu-lii'ved iK'fori' that Aliraliani liincoln would lie {guilty 
of what \\v has donr this day in n-i^ard to those ix'sohuions. In tlu- 
lii-st idarr, thr nionirnt it was inliniali-d \o nie that they had been 
adopted at Aurora and UocUford instead of Springfield, 1 did not 
wait for liini to eall my attention to the fact, Ijut led olf, and ex- 
plained in my Jirst luec-ting after the Ottawa debate what the mis- 
take was, tmd how it had been made. I snpposed that for an honest 
man, conscious of his own rectitude, that explanation would be suf- 
licii-nt. I did not wait for him, after the mistake was made, to call 
my attention to it, but frankly explained it at once as an honest 
man would. I also gave the authority on which I had stated that 
these resolutions were adopted b}' the Springfield Republican Con- 
vention; that I had seen them quoted l)y Major Harris in a deltate 
in Congress, as having been ado})ted Ijy the first Republican State 
Convention in Illinois, and that 1 had wiittcn to him and asked him 
for the authority as to the time and place of their adoption; that, 
.^Iajor Harris being extremely ill, Charles H. Lanphier had written 
to me, for him, that tbey were adopted at Springfield on the oth of 
October, 1854, and had sent me a copy of the Springfield paper con- 
taining them. I read them from the newspaper just as Mr. Lincoln 
reads the proceedings of meetings held years ago from the news- 
papers. After giving that explanation, 1 did not think there was 
an honest man in the State of Illinois who douiited that I had been 
led into the error, if it was such, innocently, in the way I detailed: 
and J will now say that I do not now believe that there is an honest 
man on the face of the globe who will not regard with abhorrence 
and di.sgust Mr. Lincoln's insiuuations of my conii)licity in that 
forgery, if it was a forgery. Does Mr. Lincoln wish to push these 
things to the point of personal difficulties here? I commenced this 
contest by treating him courteously and kindly; I always spoke of 
him in words of n'spect; and in ntuiii lie has sought, ;in(l is imw 
seeking to divert pul)lic attention from the t-normify of his revolu- 
tionary principles l»y im|)eaching mens sincerity and integrity, anil 
inviting personal fpiarrels. 

I desin-d to c<»nduct this contest with him like a gentleman; but 
1 spurn the insinuation of (Mtinplicity and fniud made upon the 
himph" cirfuuistance of an editor of a ntwspaper liaxing jn.ide a 
mistake as to tin* place wlit-re a thing was done, iiut not as to the 
thing itself. These resolutions were the platform of this Kepubli- 



DOUGLAS. 371 

can party of Mr. Lincoln's of that year. Tlicy were adopted in :i 
majority of the Repuljlican counties in the State; and when I asked 
hira at Ottawa whetiier they formed tlie phitform upon which he 
stood, he did not answer, and I could not get an answer out of liim. 
He then thought, as I thought, that tliose resolutions were adoi)ted 
at the Springfield Convention, but excu.sed himself by saying that 
he was not there when they were adopted, but had gone to Tazewell 
court in order to avoid being present at the Convention. .He saw 
them published as having been adopted at Springfield, and so did I, 
and he knew that if there was a mistake in regard to them, that I 
had nothing under heaven to do with it. Besides, you find that in 
all these northern counties where the Republican candidates are run- 
ning pledged to him, that the Conventions which nominated them 
adoi)tcd tliat identical platform. 

One cardinal point in that platform which he shrinks from is this : 
that there shall be no more Slave States admitted into the Union, 
even if the people want them. Lovejoy stands pledged again.st the 
admission of any more Slave States. [Voices: '^ Right, so do we."] 
So do you, you say. Farnsworth stands pledged against the admis- 
sion of any more Slave States. Washburne stands pledged the 
same way. The .candidate for the Legislature who is running on 
Lincoln's ticket in Henderson and Warren, stands committed by his 
vote in the Legislature to the same thing; and I am informed, but 
do not know of the fact, that your candidate here is also so pledged. 
[Voices: " Hurrah for him! good!"] 

Now, 3'ou Republicans all hurrah for him, and for the doctrine 
of "no more Slave States," and yet Lincoln tells you that his con- 
science will not permit him to sanction that doctrine, and complains 
because the resolutions I read at Ottawa made him, as a member 
of the part}', responsible for sanctioning the doctrine of no more 
Slave States. You are one way, you confess, and he is, or pretends 
to be, the other; and yet you are both governed hy principle in sup- 
porting one another. If it be true, as I have shown it is, that the 
v>l!ole Republican party in the northern part of the State stands 
committed to the doctrine of no more Slave States, and that this 
same doctrine is repudiated by the Republicans in the other part of 
the State, I wonder whether Mr. Lincoln and his party do not pre- 
sent the case which he cited from the Scriptures, of a house divided 
against itself which cannot stand! 

I desire to know what are Mr. Lincoln's principles and tlie prin- 
ciples of his party? I hold, and the party with which 1 am ideu- 



:;72 OALKSBUUC; DEBATE, UC'TUHEK 7. 1858. 

titirtl holils. tlmt the people of each State, old and new, have the 
ri^'lit to diiide the slavery (juestiou for themselves; and when I 
used the remark that I did not care whether slavery was voted up 
or down, I used it in the connection that 1 was for allowinjj; Kansas 
to do just as she pleased on the slavery (luestion. 1 said that 1 
ilid not care whether they voted slavery up or down, because they 
had the right to do as they pleased on the question, and therefore 
my action would not be controlled by any such consideration. Why 
cannot Al)raliam Lincoln, and the party with which he acts, speak 
out their principK-s so that they may be understood? Why do they 
claim to l)e one thing in one part of the State, and anotiier in the 
other part? Whenever I allude to the Abolition doctrines, which 
he considers a slander to be charged with being in favor of, you all 
endorse them, and hurrah for them, not knowing that your candi- 
date is ashamed to acknowledge them. 

THK SlI'REME COfRT. 

I have a few words to say upon the Dred Scott decision, which 
has troubled tlie brain of Mr. Lincoln so much. He insists that 
that di'cision would carry slavery into the Free States, notwithstand- 
ing that the decision says directly the opposite, and goes into a 
long argument to make you believe that I am in favor of, and would 
sanction, the doctrine that would allow slaves to be brought here 
and held as slaves contrary to our Constitution and laws. Mr. 
Lincoln knew better when he asserted this; he knew that one news- 
paper, and, so far as is within ray knowledge, but one, ever asserted 
that doctrine, and that I was the first man in either House of Con- 
gress that read that article in debate, and denounced it on the floor 
of the Senate as Kevolutionary. When the Washington i'liioii, on 
the 17th of last November, published an article to that effect, I 
branded it at once, and denounced it; and hence the rnimi has been 
pursuing me ever since. Mr. Toombs, of (Jeorgia, replied to !ne. 
and said that there was not a man in any of the Slave States south 
of the Potomac River that held any such doctrine. 

Mr. Lincoln knows that there is not a menil)er of the Supitine 
Court who holds tUat doctrine; he knows that everyone of them, 
as shown Ijy their opinions, holds the reverse. Why this attempt, 
tlien, to bring the Supreme Court into disrepute among the people? 
It looks as if there was a!i elFort bi-ing made to destroy pulilic i-on- 
rnUiice in the highest judicial tribunal on earth. Suppose he suc- 
ti-eds in ilestroying public confidence in the court, so that the people 



DOUGLAS. 373 

will iiol respect its decisions but will feel at liberty to disregard 
tliem imd resist the laws of the land, what will he have gained? 
He will have changed the Government from one of laws into that of 
a mob. in which the strong arm of violence will be substituted for 
the decisions of the courts of justice. He complains because I did 
not go into an argument reviewing Chief Justice Taney's opinion, 
and the other opinions of the different judges, to determine whether 
their reasoning is right or wrong on the questions of law. What 
use would that be? 

He WMnts to take an appeal from the Supreme Court to this 
meeting, to determine w'hether the questions of law were decided 
properly. He is going to appeal from the Supreme Court of the 
United States to every town meeting, in the hope that he can excite 
a prejudice against that court, and on the wave of that prejudice 
ride into the Senate of the United States, when he could not get 
there on his own principles or his own merits. Suppose he should 
succeed in getting into the Senate of the United States, what then 
will he have to do with the decision of the Supreme Court in the 
Dred Scott case? Can he reverse that decision when he gets there? 
Can he act upon it? Has the Senate any right to reverse it or re- 
vise it? He will not pretend that it has. Then why drag the mat- 
ter into this contest, unless for the purpose of making a false issue, 
by which he can direct public attention from the real issue. 

He has cited General Jackson in justification of the war he Is 
making on the decision of the court. Mr. Lincoln misunderstands 
the history of the country if he believes there is an}' parallel in the 
two cases. It is true that the Supreme Court once decided that if 
a Bank of the United States was a necessary fiscal agent of the 
Government, it was constitutional, and if not, that it was uncon- 
stitutional, and also, that whether or not it was necessar}' for that 
purpose, was a political question for Congress, and not a judicial 
one for the courts to determine. Hence the court would not deter- 
mine the bank unconstitutional. Jackson respected the decision, 
obeyed the law, executed it, and carried it into effect during its 
existence; but after the charter of the bank expired, and a propo- 
sition was made to create a new bank. General Jackson said, " It is 
unnecessary and improper, and therefore I am against it on consti- 
tutional grounds as well as those of expediency'." Is Congress 
bound to pass every Act that is constitutional? Why, there are a 
thousand things that are constitutional, but j-et are inexpedient and 
unnecessary, and you surely would not vote for them merely be- 



374 (.ALKSIJUUG DEBATE. tKTOlJER 7, \s:>8. 

rausi' you liatl tin.- rijjht to? And booaiisi' GtMU'ral Jackson would not 
do a thiu}; wliii-li he had a rifjlit to do, liut did not dei'iu cxpi'diciit 
or proper, Mr. Lincoln is going t(j justify liinisdf in doiiiLi that 
winch he has no right to do. 

I ask him whether he is not liouiid to respect ami oliey the de- 
ei>i(>ii-^ of the Supreme Court as well as 1? The Constitution has 
created that court to decide all constitutional questions in the last 
resort; and when such decisions have been made, they become the 
law of the land, and you, and he, and myself, and every other good 
citizen, are bound by them. \'el Ik- argues thai 1 am liouud \>\ 
their decisions, and he is not. lie says that their decisions are 
binding on Democrats, hut not on Hepulilicans. Are not Kepuhli- 
cans iHiinid hy the laws of the land as well as Democrats? And 
when the court has fixed the construction of the Constitution on the 
validity of ii given law, is not their decision l)iniling ui)on Republicans 
as well as upon Democrats? Is it possible that j^ou Hepul)licans have 
the right to raise your mobs and ojjpose the laws o[' the land and the 
constituted authorities, and yet hold us Democrats bound to obey 
them? 

My time is within half a minute of expiring, and all T have to 
say is, that I stand by the laws of the land. 1 stand by the Con- 
stitution as our fathers made it, by the laws as they are enacted, 
and by the decisions of the courts, upon all points within their juris- 
diction as they are pronounced by the highest tribunal on earth: 
and any man who resists these must resort to mob law and violence 
to overturn the government of laws. 




BRONZE GROUPS UPON LINCOLN MONUMKNT. 



SIXTH JOINT DEBATE, AT QUINCY. 

October 13, 1858. 
MR. LINCOLN'S SPEECH. 

Ladies and Gentlemen : T have had no immediate conference 
with Judge Douglas, but I will venture to say that he and I will 
perfectly agree that your entire silence, both when I speak and 
when he speaks, will be most agreeable to us. 

In the month of Ma}', 185G, the elements in the State of Illinois, 
which have since been consolidated into the Republican party, 
assembled together in a State Convention at Bloomington. They 
adopted at that time what, in political language, is called a plat- 
form. In June of the same year the elements of the Republican 
part}' in the nation assembled together in a National Convention at 
Philadelphia. They adopted what is called the National Platform. 
In June, 1858, — the present year, — the Republicans of Illinois 
reassembled at Springfield, in State Convention, and adopted again 
their platform, as I suppose not differing in any essential particular 
from either of the former ones, but perhaps adding something in 
relation to the new developments of political progress in the 
country. 

The Convention that assembled in June last did me the honor, 
if it be one, and I esteem it such, to nominate me as their candi- 
date for the United States Senate. I have supposed that, in enter- 
ing upon this canvass, I stood generally upon these platforms. We 
are now met together on the 13th of October of the same year, only 
four months from the adoption of the last platform, and I am un- 
aware that in this canvass, from the beginning until to-dav, any one 
of our adversaries has taken hold of our platforms, or laid his 
finger upon an3'thing that he calls wrong in them. 

In the very first one of these joint discussions between Senator 
Douglas and myself. Senator Douglas, without alluding at all to 
these platforms, or any one of them, of which I have spoken, at- 
tempted to hold me responsible for a set of resolutions passed long 
before the meeting of either one of these Conventions of which I 
have spoken. And as a ground for holding me responsible for 
these resolutions, he assumed that they had been passed at a State 

[375 J 



370 QllNCY DEBATE, OCTOBER 13, iSoS. 

Conveiitiou of tlu- Ki-puhlican party, aiitl that I took part in that 
Con vt'ii lion. It was disrovcrt'tl afterward tliat tliis was orroneoiis, 
that the ri'sohitions whirh he endeavored to hold nje responsil)le for 
had not hii-n passed hy any State Convention anywhere, — had not 
been passed at Sprin«;tieUl, where he snpposed they had, or assnmed 
that they had; and that they liad lieen passed in no Convention in 
which 1 had taken part. 

The Jndfxe, nevertheless, was not willing to give np the i)oint 
that he was endeavoring to make upon me, and he therefore thought 
to still hold me to the iK)int that he was endeavoring to make, by 
showing that the resolutions that he read had been passed at a local 
Convention in the northern part of the State, although it was not a 
local Convention that emiiraced my residence at all, nor one that 
reached, as I suppose, nearer than one hundred and lifty or two 
hundred miles of where I was when it met, nor one in which I took 
any part at all. He also introduced other resolutions, passed at 
other meetings, and b}' combining the whole, although they were all 
antecedent to the two State Conventions and the one National Con- 
vention I have mentioned, still he insisted, and now insists, as I 
understand, that I am in some wa}' responsible for them. 

At Jonesboro, on our thnd meeting, I insisted to the Judge that 
I was in no way rightfully held responsible for the proceedings of 
this local meeting or Convention, in which I had taken no part, and 
in which I was in no way embraced; but I insisted to liiui that if 
he thought I was responsil)le for every man or every set of men ev- 
erywhere, who happen to be my friends, the rule ought to \\ork both 
ways, and he ought to be responsible for the acts and resolu- 
tions of all men or sets of men who were or are now his supporters 
and friends, and gave him a pretty long string of resolutions, passed 
l)y nu-n who are now his friends, and announcing doctrines for 
which he does not desire to be held responsilde. 

LINCOLN N(Un'II AN1> SolTH. 

Til is still docs not satisfy- Judge Douglas. lie still adheres to his 
prop«)sition, that I am responsible for what .Muncof luy friends in dif 
fer«*nt parts of the State have done, but tliat lie is not responsil)le for 
what his liave done. At least, so I understand him. But in addi- 
tion to that, the Judge, at our meeting in (Jalesburg, last week, 
undertak«'K to establish thai I am guilty of a species of double deal- 
ing with the public; that I make speeches of a certain sort in the 
n(jrth, among the Abolitionists, which 1 wi»nld not make in the 



LINCOLN. 377 

south, and that T make speeches of a certain sort in the south which 
I would not make in the north. I apprehend, in the course I have 
marked out for myself, that I shall not have to dwell at very great 
length Ujjon this subject. 

As this was done in the Judge's opening speech at Galesburg, 
I had an opportunity, as I had the middle speech then, of saying 
something in answer to it. He brought forw^ard a quotation or two 
from a speech of mine delivered at Chicago, and then, to contrast 
with it, he brought foi'ward an extract from a speech of mine at 
Charleston, in which he insisted that I was greatly inconsistent, 
and insisted that his conclusion followed, that I was playing a 
double part, and speaking in one region one way, and in another 
region another way. I have not time now to dwell on this as long as 
I would like, and wish only now to requote that portion of m}- speech 
at Charleston which the Judge quoted, and then make some com- 
ments upon it. This he quotes from me as being delivered at 
Charleston, and I believe correctly: — 

"I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bring- 
ing about in any way the social and political equalit}' of the white and 
black races; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters 
or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to inter- 
marry- with white people; and I will say, in addition to this, that there is 
a physical difference between the white and black races which will ever 
forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political 
equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain to- 
gether there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much 
as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to 
the white race." 

This, I believe, is the entire quotation from the Charleston 
speech, as Judge Douglas made it. His comments are as fol- 
lows : — 

" Yes, here you find men who hurrah for Lincoln, and say he is right 
when he discards all distinction between races, or when he declares that 
he discards the doctrine that there is such a thing as a superior and 
inferior race; and Abolitionists are required and expected to vote for Mr. 
Lincoln because he goes for the equality of races, holding that in the 
Declaration of Independence the white man and negro were declared 
equal, and endowed by divine law with equality. And down South, Avith 
the Old Line Whigs, with the Kentuckians, the Virginians, an(l the Ten- 
nesseeans, he tells you that there is a physical difference between the 
races, making the one superior, the other inferior, and he is in favor of 
maintaining the superiority of the white race over the negro." 



378 QUIXCY DERATE. DCTOBKll VX 1858. 

Those art' tlu' .liulges comments. Now, I wish to show 3011 
that a month, or only hickinix three days of a mi»nth. Iiel'ore I made 
the sjHH'eh at Cliarleston, wliich the .lud^e (jiiote.s from, he had 
liimsflf hrard me say siilistantially the same thinj^. It was hi our 
first meotinji'at Ottawa — and I will say a word ahoiit where it was, 
and the atmosphere it was in, after awhile — but at our first meet- 
ing, at Ottawa, I read an extract from an old speech of mine, 
mad*- nearly four years aji^o, not merely to show my sentiments, hut 
to show that my sentiments were lon<r entertained and openly ex- 
pressed; in which extract I expressly declared that my own feelings 
woidd not admit a social and political e(iuality between the white 
and black races, and that even if my own feelings would admit 
of it. I still kiu'w that [\\v pultlic sentiment of the country 
would not, and that such a thing was an utter impossiljility, 
or substantially that. That extract from my old speech, the 
reporters, by .some sort of accident passed over, and it was not 
nported. I lay no blame upon anybody. I suppose they thought 
that 1 would hand it over to them, and dropped reporting while I 
w:is reading it, but afterward went away without getting it from 
me. At the end of that quotation from my old speech, which 1 
ie.id :'.t Ottawa, I made the comments which were reported at tliat 
lime, and which I will now read, and ask you to notice how very 
i:e:irly they .are the same as Judge Douglas says were delivered l)y 
me, down in Hgypt. After reading, I added these words : — 

•' Now, f,'entl<'m»'n, I do n't want to road at any {greater lonprtli ; but this 
is till' trur C(»mpli'.\ion of all I have ever said in regard to the iiistilulioii 
of slavory or the black race, and this is the whole of it: anytiiins lh.it 
arfjut'S me into his idea of perfect social and political equalitj' with llir 
nopro, is but a sf)ecious and fantastical arranf^emtMit of wonls by wiiicli 
a mjiii can prove a horse-chestnut to be a chestnut horse. I will say here, 
wliile u|M)ri tliis subject, that I have no purjMwe. directly or indirectly, to 
interfere with the institution of slavery in tiie States where it exists. I be- 
lieve I Iiave no lawful riirlit to do .so. and 1 li.ave no inclination to do so. 1 
have no puriM)se to introduce jiolitical and social e(iuality between liie 
white and l)lack races. There is a physical dilb-rence between the two 
whicli. in my jnd^'meiit. will i)rol)ably forever forbid their liviiii,' 
to<,'etlier on the footiii;,' of i)erfecl ecjuality; and iiiasnuicii as it I) - 
conies a necessity tiiat there must be a dilfereiice. I, as well as .ludiTe 
|)ou;rlas. am in favor of the race to which I l)elonfj, having the superior 
jMisilioii. I have never said anything It) the contrary, but 1 hold that, 
notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro 
is not entitled to all the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Inde- 
iKMidence. — the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of hapi>ine.ss. 1 
hold that he is as much entitled to these as tiie white m.m. I agree with 



LINCOLN. 379 

Judf?e Douglas that ho is not my equal in many respects, certainly not in 
color, perhaps not in intellectual and moral endowments ; but in the right 
to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand 
earns, he is my equal, and the equal ol' Judge Douglas, and the equal of 
every living man." 

T liave chiefly introduced this for the purpose of meeting the 
Judge's chai-ge that the quotation he took from my Charleston 
speech was what I would say down South among the Kentuckians, 
the Virginians, etc., but would not say in the regions in which was 
supposed to be more of the Abolition element. I now make this 
comment: That speech from which I have now read the quotation, 
and which is there given correctly — perhaps too m.uch so for good 
taste — was made away up North in the Abolition District of this 
?>tate par exceUeHce, in the Lovejoy District, — in the personal pres- 
ence of Lovejoy, for he was on the stand with us when I made it. 
It had been made and put in print in that region onl}' three days 
less than a month before the speech made at Charleston, the like 
of which Judge Douglas thinks I would not make where there was 
any Abolition element. I only refer to this matter to say that I 
am altogether unconscious of having attempted any double-dealing 
anywhere, that upon one occasion I may say one thing, and leave 
other things unsaid, and vice versa ; but that I have said anything 
on one occasion that is inconsistent with what I have said else- 
where, I deny, — at least I deny it so far as the intention is con- 
cerned. I find that I have devoted to this topic a larger portion 
of my time than I had intended. I wished to show, but I will pass 
it upon this occasion, that in the sentiment I have occasionally 
advanced upon the Declaration of Independence, I am entirely 
borne out by the sentiments advanced b}^ our old "Whig leader, 
Henry Clay, and I have the book here to show it from; Ijut because 
I have already occupied more time than I intended to do on that 
topic, I pass over it. 

CONSEQUENCES OP THE DRED SCOTT DECISION. 

At Galesburg, I tried to show that by the Dred Scott decision, 
pushed to its legitimate consequences, slavery would be established 
in all the States as well as in the Territories. 1 did this because, 
upon a former occasion, I had asked Judge Douglas whether, if 
the Supreme Court should make a decision declaring that the States 
had not the power to exclude slavery from their limits, he would 
adopt and follow that decision as a rule of political action; and 



nSO griN("V DKHATE, OCTOliHK KJ, 1858. 

Ijt't-iiise lu' U:h\ not iHivctly answered that (jiu'stion, ])ut had merely 
contented liiniM-lf with sneerini^ at it, I again iulrodueed it, and 
tried to sliow tluit the conclusion that I stated followed inevitably 
antl logieally from the proposition already deeided by tlie court. 
Judge Douglas had the privilege of ri'pl3ing to me at (Jak'sburg, 
and again he gave me no direct answer as to whether lie would or 
would not sustain such a decision if made. I give him this third 
chance to say yes or no. He is not obliged to do either, — ^ proba- 
bly he will not do either; but I give him the third chance. I tried 
to .show then that this result, this conclusion, inevital)!}' followed 
from till' point already decided by the court. The Judge, in his 
reply, again sneers at the thought of the court making any such 
decision, and in the cour.se of his remarks upon this sui)ject luses 
the language whieii I will now ri'.id. Speaking of me, the Judge 
says: " He goes on and insists that the Dred 8cott decision would 
carry slavery into the Free States, notwithstanding the decision 
itself says the contrary. ■' And he adds: "Mr. Lincoln knows that 
there is no member of the Supreme Court that holds that doctrine. 
He knows that every one of them in their opinions held the 
reverse. " 

I especially introduce this subject again, for the purpose of 
saying that I have the Dred Scott decision here, and [ will lliaiik 
Judge Douglas to lay his finger ujiou the place in the entire opin- 
ions of the court where any one of them "says the contrary."' It 
is very hard to allirm a negative with entire confidence. 1 say, 
however, that I have examined that decision with a good deal of 
care, as a lawyer examines a decision, and, so far as I have been 
able to do so, the court has nowhere in its opinions said that 
the Stiites have the power to exclude slavery, nor have they 
used other language substantially that. I al.so say, so far as I 
can fiixl, not one of the concurring Judges has said that the States 
can exclude slavery, nor said anything that was substantially 
that. The nearest approach that any one of them has made to 
it, HO far as 1 can find, was by Judge Nelson, and the approach 
he ma<le to it was exactly, in substance, the Neitiaska bill, — that 
tiie Stiites had the exclusive power over the (|iiesiion of sl.avery, 
so far as they are not limited by the (.Constitution of the United 
States. I asked the (juestion, thiTcfore, if the non-concurring 
Judges, .McLean or (.'urtis, had asked to get an express declaration 
that the Stales could absolutely exclude slavery from their limits, 
wliat reason have we to believe that it would not have been voted 



LINCOLN. 381 

down by the majority of the Judges, just as Chases aiin'iidment 
was voti'd down by Judge Douglas and his compeers when it was 
oll'ered to the Nebraska bill. 

WHAT LINCOLN DARED. 

Also, at Galesburg, I said something in regard to those Spring- 
field resolutions that Judge Douglas had attempted to use upon me 
at Ottawa, and commented at some length upon the fact that they 
were, as presented, not genuine. Judge Douglas in his reply to me 
seemed to be somewhat exasperated. He said he never would have 
believed that Al)raham Lincoln, as he kindly called me, would have 
attempted such a thing as I had attempted upon that occasion ; and 
among other expressions which he used toward me, was that I dared 
to say forgery, — that I had dared to say forgery [turning to Judge 
Douglas]. Yes, Judge, 1 did dare to say forgery. But in this po- 
litical canvass, the Judge ought to remember that I was not the first 
who dared to say forgery. At Jacksonville; Judge Douglas made a 
speech in answer to something said by Judge Trumbull, and at the 
close of what he said upon that subject, he dared to say that Trum- 
bull had forged his evidence. He said, too, that he should not con- 
cern himself with Trumbull any more, but thereafter he should hold 
Lincoln responsible for the slanders upon him. When I met him at 
Charleston after that, although I think that I should not have 
noticed the subject if he had not said he would hold me responsible 
for it, I spread out before him the statements of the evidence that 
Judge Trumbull had used, and I asked Judge Douglas, piece by 
piece, to put his finger upon one piece of all that evidence that he 
would say w-as a forgery ! When I went through with each and 
every piece. Judge Douglas did not dare then to say that any piece 
of it was a forgery. So it seems that there are some things that 
Judge Douglas dares to do, and some that he dares not to do. 

A Voice. — Its the same thing with you.. 

Mr. Lincoln. — Yes. sir, it's the same thing with me. I do dare 
to say forgery when it' s true, and do n't dare to say forgery when 
it's false. Now I will say here to this audience and to Judge 
Douglas, I have not dared to say he committed a forgery, and I 
never shall until I know it ; but I did dare to say — just to suggest 
to the Judge — that a forgery had been committed, which by his 
own showing had been traced to him and two of his friends. I 
dared to suggest to him that he had expressly promised in one of 
his public speeches to investigate that matter, and I dared to sug- 



382 QlINeV DEIJATE. tK'TOBER 13. 1858. 

gest to him that there was an implieil promise that when he invcsti- 
gateil it lie would make known the result. 1 ihirecl to suggest to the 
Judge that he could not exi>ect to be quite clear of suspicion of that 
fraud, ft>r since tiie time that promise was made he had been with 
those friends, anil had not kept his promise in regard to the investi- 
gation and the report upon it. 1 am not a very daring man, hut 1 
dared that much, Juilge, anil I am not much scared about it yet. 

When the .Judge says he wouldn't have believed of Ai)r;;li:im 
Lincoln that be would have made such an attempt as that, he re- 
minds me of the f.iet that he ontereil upon this canvass with t!ie 
purpose to treat me courteously. That touched mo .--oraewliat. h 
set me to thinking. I was aware, when it was fir:-.t agreed tliat 
Judge I)ouglas and I were to have these seven joint disiussions, Ih.-.t 
tiiey were the successive acts of a drama, — perhaps I should Piy, 
to be enictod not morely in the faca of audiences like this, but in t]i3 
face of tlia nation, and to soma extent, by my relation to )iim, and 
not from anychiajj in myself, in the face of the world; and I am 
anxious that they sliould be conducted with dignity and in the 
good temper which would be befitting the vast audience before 
which it was conducted. 

But when Judge Douglas got home from Washington and m.ide 
his first speech in Chicago, the evening afterward I made some sort of 
a re|>ly to it. His .second speech was made at Bloomington, in which 
he commented upon my speech at Chicago, and said that I had 
use<l language ingeniousl}' contrived to conceal my intentions, — or 
words to that effect. Now, I understand that this is an imputation 
upon my veracity and my candor. I do not know what the Judge 
understood by it, but in our first discussion, at Ottawa, he led oiF 
by charging a liargain, somewhat corrupt in ils character, upon 
Trumliull and myself, —that we had entered into a bargain, one of 
the terms of which was that Trumbull was to .Mtolit ionize the old 
Democratic parly, and I ( Lincoln) was to .\holilioni/,e the old NVliig 
party; 1 pretending to be as good an Old Line Whig as ever. Judge 
Douglas may not un<lerstand that he implicated my truthfulness 
anil my honor when he s lid I w.-is doing one thing and pretending 
another; and I misunderstood him if he llioiighl he w.is treating 
me in a digniiied way, as a man «»f honor and tnilh. as he now 
claims he was disposed to treat me. Kven after that time, at 
(Jalesbing. wlieu he brings forward an extract from a spee<-li uiadf 
at Chicag<». and an extract from a speecli m.idi* at Charleston, to 
prove tUut 1 was trying to play a double part, — that I was trying to 



LINCOLN. 383 

cheat the public, and get votes upon cue set of principles at one 
place, and upon another set of principles at another place, — I do 
not understand but what he impeaches my honor, my veracity, and 
my candor; and because he does this, I do not understand that I am 
bound, if I see a truthful ground for it, to keep my hands otf of 
him. 

As soon as I learned that Judge Douglas was di:^ posed to treat 
me in this way, I signified in one of my speeches tiiat I should be 
driven to draw upon whatever of humble resources I might have, 
— to adopt a new course with him. I was not entirely sure that I 
should be able to hold my own with him, but I at least had the pur- 
pose made to do as well as I could upon him; and now 1 say that I 
will not be the first to cry " hold." I think it originated with the 
Judge, and when he quits, I probably will. But I shall not ask any 
favors at all. 

He asks me, or he asks the audience, if I wish to push this mat- 
ter to the point of personal difficulty. I tell him, no. lie did not 
make a mistake, in one of his early speeches, when he called me an 
"amiable" man, though perhaps he did when lie called me an 
"intelligent" man. It really hurts me very much to suppose that 
I have wrouged anybody on earth. I again tell him, no ! I very 
much prefer, when this canvass shall be over, however it may result, 
that we at least part without any bitter recollections of personal 
difficulties. 

Lincoln's principles "in all their enormity." 

The Judge, in his concluding speech at G-alesburg, says that I 
was pushing this matter to a personal difficulty, to avoid the respon- 
sibility for the enormity of my principles. I say to the Judge and 
this audience, n')W, that I will again state our principles as well as I 
hastily can, in all their enormity, and if the Judge hereafter chooses 
to confine himself to a war upon these principles, he will probably 
not find me departing from the same course. 

We have in this nation this element of domestic slavery. It is 
a matter of absolute certainty that it is a disturbing element. It 
is the opinion of all the great men who have expressed an opinion 
upon it, that it is a dangerous element. We keep up a contro- 
versy in regard to it. That controversy necessarily springs from 
diiference of opinion; and if we can learn exactl}', — can reduce to 
the lowest elements — what that difference of opinion is, we perhaps 
shall be better prepared for discussing the dill'creut systems of 



384 gl'l^'CY DEBATE, UCTUBEK 13, 1858. 

policy that we wouKl propose in regard to that disturl)in<^ cli'mi'iit. 
1 suji}Z«'st tliat tlif tliiriTcnce of opinion, reducfd to its lowest terms, 
is no other than the ditrerence between the men who think slavery a 
v.-ronjj, and those who do not think it wrong. The llepuldiean 
party think it wrong; we think it is a moral, a social, and a pcjliti- 
eal wrong. We think it is a wrong not confining it.self merely to 
the persons or the States where it exists, but that it is a wrong in 
its tendency, to say the least, that extends itself to the existence of 
the whole nation. Because we think it wrong, we propose a course 
of policy that shall deiil witli it as a wrong. We de:il witli it as 
with any othi-r wrung, in so far as we can prevent its growing any 
larger, aiul so ileal with it that in the run of time there may be some 
promise of an end to it. 

We have a due regard to the actual presence of it amongst us, 
and the ililllculties of getting rid of it in any satisfactory way, and 
all the constitutional obligations thrown about it. I suppose that 
in reference both to its actual existence in the nation, and to our 
constitutional obligations, we have no right at all to disturb it in 
the States where it exists, ami we profess that we have no more 
inclination to disturb it than we have the right to do it. We go 
further than that : we don't propose to disturb it, where, in one 
instance, we tliink the Constitution would permit us. W'v think 
the Constitution would permit us to disturb it in the Dislriit of Co- 
lumbia. Still, we tlo not propose to do that, unless it should be in 
terms which I don't suppose the nation is ver}' likely soon to agree 
to, — the terms of making the emancipation gradual, and compen- 
sating the unwilling owners. Where we suppose we have the con- 
stitutional right, we restrain oursi'lves in reference to the actual 
existence of the institution and the dilliculties thrown about it. We 
also oppose it as an evil so far as it seeks to spread itself. We insist 
on the policy that shall restrict it to its |)rcsent limits. We don't 
suppose that in doing this we violate anything due to the actual 
presence of the institution, or anytliing due to the constitutional 
guafaiilfts tliiiiwn ai'ouml it. 

We oppose the Dred Scott decision in a certain way, upon which 
I ought perhaps to address you a few words. We do not propose 
that when I)rc(l Scott has been decidetl to be a slave by that court. 
we, as :i inuK, will decide him to be free, ^\'c do not proposi' that, 
when any other one, or one thousand, shall be decided i»y the court 
to bi! slaves, we will in any violent way disturb the rights of prop- 
erty thus settled : but we nevertheless do oppose that decision as a 



LINCOLN. 385 

political rule which shall be binding on the voter to vote for no- 
body who thinks it wrong : which shall be binding on the members 
of Congress or the President to favor no measure that does not 
actually concur with the principles of that decision. We do not pro- 
pose to be bound by it as a political rule in that way because we 
think it hiys the foundation, not merely of enlarging and spreading 
out what we consider an evil, but it lays tlie foundation for spreading 
that evil into the States themselves. "We propose so resisting it as 
to have it reversed if we can, and a new judicial rule established 
upon this subject. 

I will add this, that if there be any man who does not believe 
that slavery is wrong in the three aspects which I have mentioned, or 
in any one of them, that man is misplaced, and ought to leave us. 
While, on the other hand, if there be any man in the llepublican 
party who is impatient over the necessity springing from its actual 
presence, and is impatient of the constitutional guarantees thrown 
around it, and would act iu disregard of these, he too is misplaced, 
standing with us. He will find his place somewhere else ; for we 
have a due regard, so far as we are capable of understanding them, 
for all these things. This, gentlemen, as well as I can give it, is a 
plain statement of our principles in all their enormity. 

THE CONTRARY SENTIMENT. 

I will say now that there is a sentiment in the country contrary 
tome, — a sentiment which holds that slavery is not wrong, and 
therefore it goes for the policy that does not propose dealing with it 
as a wrong. That policy is the Democratic polic}', and that senti- 
ment is the Democratic sentiment. If there be a doubt in the mind 
of any one of this vast audience that tliis is really the central idea 
of the Democratic party, iu relation to the subject, I ask him to 
bear with me while I state a few things tending, as I think, to 
prove that proposition. 

In the first place, the leading man — I think I may do my friend 
Judge Douglas the honor of calling him such — advocating the pres- 
ent Democratic policy, never himself says it is wrong. He has the 
high distinction, so far as I know, of never having said slavery is 
either right or Avrong. Almost everybody else says one or the other, 
but the Judge never does. If there be a man in the Democratic 
party who thinks it is wrong, and yet clings to that party, I sug- 
gest to him, in the first place, that his leader don't talk as he does, 
for he never says that it is wrong. 



3SG QTINCY DKHATE, UCTUliEIl i:5. 1H3S. 

In the seioiul place, I sufrjiest to hira that if he will examine the 
poliey proposed to be carried forwaril, he will find that lie earefully 
excludes the idea that there is anything WTong in it. If you will 
examine the arguments that are made on it, you will find that 
every one carefully excludes the idea that there is anything wrong 
in slavery. 

Perhaps that Demoerat who says he is as much opposed to 
slavery as I am, will tell me that I am wrong about this. I wish 
him to examine his own course in regard to this matter a moment, 
and then see if his opinion will not jje changed a little. You say it 
is wrong; l>ut do n't you constantly object to anybody else saying 
so? Do you not constantly argue that this is not the right place to 
oppose it ? You say it must not be opposed in the Free States, 
because slavery is not here; it must not be opposed in the Slave 
States, because it is there; it must not be opposed in politics, be- 
cause that will make a fuss ; it must not be opposed in the pulpit, 
iM'cause it is not religion. Then where is the place to oppose it? 
There is no suitable place to oppose it. There is no plan in the 
country to oppose this evil overspreading the continent, which you 
say yourself is coming. Frank lilair and Gratz Brown tried t«) get 
up a .system of gradual emancipation in Missouri, had an election in 
August, and got beat, and you, Mr. Democrat, threw \i[) your h:it, 
and hallooed "Hurrah for Demoeracy." 

So I say, again, that in regard to the arguments that are made, 
when Judge Douglas says he " don't care whether slavery is voted 
up or voted down," whether he means that as an individual expres- 
sion of sentiment, or only as a sort of statement of his views on 
national policy, it is alike true to say that he can thus argue log- 
ically if he do n't see anything wrong in it ; but he cannot say so 
logically if he admits that slavery is wrong. He cannot say that 
he would as soon see a wrong voted up as voted down. 

When .Iu<lge Douglas says that whoever or whatever community 
wants slaves, they have a right to have tlu-m, he is perfectly logical, 
if there is nothing wrong in the institution; but if you admit that it 
IS wrong, he cannot logically say that anybody has a right to do 
wrong. Whtii lie says that slave property and horse aiuf hog 
pro|>erty an- alike to l)e allowed to go into the Territories, upon the 
principles of equality, he is reasoning truly, if there is no difference 
Id'tween tlu-m as property; but if the one is property held right fully, 
and the other is wntng, then there is no eciuality between the right 
and wrong; so that, turn it in any way you can, in all the argu- 



LINCOLN. 387 

ments sustaining the Democratic policy, and in that policy itself, 
there is a careful, studied exclusion of the idea that there is any- 
thing wrong in slavery. 

Let us understand this. I am not, just here, trying to prove 
that we are right, and they arc wrong. I have been stating where 
we and they stand, and trying to show what is the real difference 
between us ; and I now say that whenever we can get the question 
distinctly stated, can get all these men who believe that slavery is 
in some of these respects wrong, to stand and act with us in treating 
it as a wrong, — then, and not till then, I think we will in some way 
come to au end of this slavery agitation. 



MR. DOUGLAS'S REPLY. 

Ladies and Gentlemen: Permit me to say that unless silence 
is observed it will be impossible for me to be heard by this im- 
mense crowd, and my friends can confer no higher favor upon me 
than b}^ omitting all expressions of applause or approbation. I 
desire to be heard rather than to be applauded. I wish to address 
myself to your reason, your judgment, your sense of justice, and 
not to your passions. 

I regret that Mr. Lincoln should have deemed it proper for him 
to again indulge in gross personalities and base insinuations in 
regard to the Springfield resolutions. It has imposed upon me the 
necessity of using some portion of m}'' time for the purpose of call- 
ing your attention to the facts of the case, and it Avill then be for 
you to say what you think of a man who can predicate such a 
charge upon the circumstances as he has in this. I had seen the 
platform adopted by a Republican Congressional Convention held in 
Aurora, the Second Congressional District, in September, 1854, 
published as purporting to be the platform of the Republican party. 
That platform declared that the Republican party was pledged 
ncA-er to admit another Slave State into the Union, and also that it 
Avas pledged to prohibit slavery in all the Territories of the United 
States, not only all that we then had, but all that we should there- 
after acquire, and to repeal unconditionally the Fugitive-Slave law, 
abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, and prohibit the slave- 
trade between the different States. These and other articles against 
slavery were contained in this platform, and unanimously adopted 
by the Republican Congressional Convention in that District. I 
had also seen that the Republican Congressional Conventions at 



:^H» QriNCV DKHATK. OCTOBKR i:{. 18.58. 

Rockford, in tho First Di.strict, and iit Hlooinington, in the Tliinl, 
liad a<loptod the same phitform that year, nearly word for word, 
and liad deehired it to he the phitform of the Reimlilican p:irty. I 
had notieed that Major Thomas L. Harris, a member of Congress 
from the Springfield District, had referred to tliat platform in a 
speeeh in Congress as having been adopted by the first Repiibliean 
State Convention whieh assembled in Illinois. 

Wlieii I had occasion to use the fact in this canvass, I wrote to 
Major Harris to know on what day that Convention was held, and to 
ask him to send me its proeeediiigs. He being siek, Charles H. 
Lanphier answered my letter by sending me the published proceed- 
ings of the Convention held at Springfield on the 5th of October, 
1H54, as they appeared in the report of the State R^yistn: I read 
those resolutions from that newspajjer the same as any of you would 
refer back and cjuote any fact from the files of a new.spaper which 
had published it. Mr. Lincoln pretends that after I had so quoted 
those resolutions he discovered that they had never been adopted at 
Springfield. lie does not deny their adoi)lion by the Repul)lican 
party at Aurora, at Bloomington, and at Rc^ckford, and by nearly 
all the Republican County Conventions in Northern Illinois where 
his party is in a majority, but merely because they were not adopted 
on the ^^ spot" on which I said they were, he chooses to quibble 
about the place rather than meet and discuss the merits of the reso- 
lutions themselves. I stated when I quoted them that I did so from 
the t^fdtc Riyistcr. I gave my authority. Lincoln believed at the 
time, as he has since admitted, that they had been adopted at 
Springfield, as published. Does he believe now that I did not tell 
the truth when I (juoted those resolutions? Tie knows, in his heart, 
that I (juoted them in good faith bi'lieving at the time that they 
h:i<l i)een adopted at Springfield. I would consider myself an 
infamous wretch, if, under such circumstani-es, I could charge any 
man with being a party to a trick or a fraud. And T will tell 
liiiii, too, that it will iiol <lo lo clcuge a forgery on Charles II. 
Lanphier (;r Thomas Ji. Harris. No uian on earth, who knows 
them, and knows Lincoln, would take his oath against their word. 
There are not two men in the State of Illinois who have higher 
characters for truth, for integrity, for moral character, ami for eleva- 
tion of tone, as gentlemen, lli.in .^h•. li.inphier and "SXr. Harris. 
.\ny man who attempts to make such charges as Mr. Lineohi has 
iinbiii^ed in against them, only proclaims himself a sl:inilercr. 

1 will now show vuu that I stated with entire fairness, as 



DOUGLAS. 389 

soon as it was made known to me, that there was a mistake about 
the spot where the resolutions had been adopted, although their 
truthfulness, as a declaration of the principles of the Republican 
party, had not been, and could not be, questioned. I did not wait for 
Lincoln to point out the mistake, but the moment I discovered it, I 
made a speech, and i)ublished it to the world, correcting the error. 
I corrected it ni3self, as a gentleman and an honest man, and as T 
always feel proud to do when I have made a mistake. I wish Mr. 
Lincoln could show that he has acted with e(iual fairness and truth- 
fulness when I have convinced him that he has been mistaken. I 
will give you an illustration to show you how he acts 'in a similar 
case: In a speech at Springfield, he charged Chief Justice Taney 
and his associate's. President Pierce, President Buchanan, and my- 
self, with having entered into a conspiracy at the time the Nebraska 
bill was introduced, by which the Dred Scott decision was to be 
made by the Supreme Court, in order to carry slavery everywhere 
under the Constitution. I called his attention to the fact that at the 
time alluded to, to wit, the introduction of the Nebraska bill, it was 
not possible that such a conspiracy could have been entered mto, 
for the reason that the Dred Scott case had never been taken before 
the Supreme Court, and was not taken before it for a year after; 
and I asked him to take back that charge. Did he do it? I 
showed hira that it was impossible that the charge could be true; I 
proved it by the record; and I then called upon him to retract his 
false charge. What was his answer? Instead of coming out like 
an honest man and doing so, he reiterated the charge, and said that 
if the case had not gone up to the Supreme Court from the courts 
of Missouri at the time he charged that the Judges of the Supreme 
Court entered into the conspiracy, yet, that there was an under- 
standing with the Democratic owners of Dred Scott that they would 
take it up. 

I have since asked him who the Democratic owners of Dred Scott 
were, but he could not tell, and why? Because thei'e were no such 
Democratic owners in existence. Dred Scott at the time was owned 
by the Rev. Dr. Chaffee, an Abolition member of Congress, of 
Springfield, Massachusetts, in right of his wife. He was owned by 
one of Lincoln's friends, and not by Democrats at all ; his case was 
conducted in court by Abolition lawyers, so that both the prosecu- 
tion and the defense were in the hands of the Abolition political 
friends of Mr. Lincoln. Notwithstanding I thus proved by the 
record that his charge against the Supreme Court was false, instead 



300 griNcv i)i:i:ati:. uctuukr i:}. ibtjs. 

of Uikin^ it Itack, ho resorted to another false char<j;e to sustain tlie 
infamy of it. He also charged ['resident Buchanan with having 
been a party to the conspiracy. I directed his attention to the fact 
that the charge could not possibly be true, for the reason that at 
the time specified, Mr. Buchanan was not in America, but was three 
thousand miles off, rei)r('senting the United States at the Court of 
St. James, and had been there for a year previous, and did not re- 
turn until three years afterward. Yet I never could get Mr. Lincoln 
to take back his false charge, although T have •called upon him over 
and over again. He refuses to do it. and either remains silent, or 
resorts to other tricks tc try antl palm his slander ol!' on the coun- 
try. Therein you will lind the ditlerence between Mr. Jiincoln and 
myself. When I make a mistake, as an honest ujan I correct it 
without being asked to do so; but when he makes a false charge, 
he sticks to it, and never corrects it. One word more in regard to 
these resolutions; I quoted them at Ottawa merely to ask Mr. 
Lincoln whether he stood on that platform. That was the purpose 
for which I quoted them. I did not think that I had a right to put 
idle questions to him, and I fust laid a foundation for my questions 
by showing that the principles which 1 wished him either to alfirm 
or deny had been adopted by some portion of his friends, at least, 
as their creed. Hence I read the resolutions and put the questions 
to him; and he then refused to answer tlu'm. Su!)sequcntly, one 
week afterward, he did answer a part of them, but the others he has 
not answered up to this daj-. 

THE OTTAWA QI'K.STIONS AST) ANSWERS. 

Now, let me call your attention for a moment to the answers 
which Mr. Lincoln made at Freeport to the (piestions which I -{jro- 
pounded him at Ottawa, based upon the platform adopted by a 
majority of the Abolition counties of the State, which now, as then, 
supported him. In answer to my cpiestion whether he indorsed the 
Black KcpuhlicaM principle of •' no more Slave States," he answered 
that he was not pledged against the admission of an}' more Slave 
States, but that he would be very sorry if he should ever be placed 
in a position where he would have to vote on the question; that he 
would rejoice to know that no more Slave States would be admitted 
into the Union. " But, " he added, " if slavi-ry shall be kept out 
of the Territories <luring the Territorial existence of any one given 
Territory, and then the people shall, having a fair chance and a 
clear field when they come to adopt the constitution, do such an 



DOUGLAS. 391 

extraordinary thing as to adopt a slave constitution, uninfluenced 
by the actunl presence of the institution among them, I see no alter- 
native, if we own the country, but to admit them into tiie Union." 

The point I wish him to answer is this: Suppose Congress sliould 
not prohibit slavery in the Territory, and it applied for admission 
with a constitution recognizing slavery, then how would he vote? 
His answer at Freeport does not apply to any Territory in America. 
I ask you [turning to Lincoln], will you vote to admit Kansas into 
the Union, with just such a constitution as her people want, with 
slavery or without, as they shall determine? He will not answer. 
I have put that question to him time and time again, and have not 
been able to get an answer out of him. I ask you again, Lincoln, 
will 3'Ou vote to admit New Mexico, when she has the requisite 
population: with such a constitution as her people tulopt, either 
recognizing slavery or not, as they shall determine? He will not 
answer. I put the same question to him in reference to Oregon and 
the new States to be carved out of Texas in pursuance of the con- 
tract between Texas and the United States, and he will not answ.er. 

He will not answer these questions in reference to any Territory 
now in existence, but says that if Congress should prohibit slavery 
in a Territory, and when its people asked for admission as a State, 
they should adopt slavery as one of their institutions, that he sup- 
poses he would have to let it come in. I submit to ^'ou whether 
that answer of his to my question does not justify me in saying that 
he has a fertile genius in devising language to conceal his thoughts. 
I ask 3'ou whether there is an intelligent man in America who does 
not believe that that answer was made for the purpose of concealing 
what he intended to do. He wished to make the Old Line Whigs be- 
lieve that he would stand by the Compromise Measures of 1850, 
which declared that the States might come into the Union with 
slavery, or without, as they pleased, while Lovejoy and his Aboli- 
tion allies up north explained to the Abolitionists that in taking this 
ground he preached good Abolition doctrine, because his proviso 
would not apply to any terrritory in America, and therefore there 
was no chance of his being governed by it. It would have been 
quite easy for him to have said that he would let the people of a 
State do just as they pleased, if he desired to convey such an idea. 
Why did he not do it? He would not answer my question directly, 
because up north, the Abolition creed declares that there shall be no 
more Slave States, while down south, in Adams County, in Coles, 
and in Sangamon, he and his friends are afraid to advance that doc- 



302 QUINCY DERATE. OCTORER 13. 1858. 

trine. Thcrcfort', ho <xivos an cvnsivc uikI i'(|iiiv(ii':il answer, to ho 
c«mstrue(l one way in tlio south and aiiothor way hi tho north, whioh, 
when analyzed, it is apparent is not an answer at all with reference 
to any Territory now in existence. 

Mr. Lincoln complains that in my speech the other day at 
Galeshnrji I read an extract from a speech delivered hy him at 
Chieaixo. anil then another from his speech at Charlest(jn, and eom- 
pareil them, thns showing the people that he had one set of princi- 
ples in one part of the State, and anotlier in the other part. And 
liow does he answer that charge? Why, he quotes from his 
C'harleslon speech as I (pioted from it, and then (juotes anotiior 
extract from a speech which he made at another place, which he 
says is the same as the extract from his speech at Charleston; hut 
he does not (piote the extract from his Chicago speech, upon which 
I convicted him of doul)le-dealing. I ([uoted from his Chicago 
speech to prove that ho hold one set of principles up north among 
the Aholitionists, and from his Charleston speech to prove that he 
he]d another set down at Charleston and in southern Illinois. In 
his answer to this charge, he ignores entirely his Chicago speech, 
and merely argues that he said the same thing which he said at 
Charleston at another place. If he did, it follows that he has twice 
instead of once, held one creed in one part of the State, and a dif- 
ferent creed in another part. Up at Chicago, in the opening of the 
campaign, he reviewed m}' reception speech, and undertook to an- 
swer my argument attacking his favorite doctrine of negro equality. 
I had shown that it was a falsification of the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence to pretend that that instrument applied to and inehulod 
negroes in the clause declaring that all men are created e(jual. 
Wiiat was Lincoln's reply? I will read from his Chicago speech 
and the one which he did not quote, and ilure not ciuole, in this i)art 
of the State. He said: — 

" I should like to know, if taking lliLs old Doclaration of Independence, 
wliich declares that all men are e(inal upon priiicij)le, and making excep- 
lioii.s to it, where will it .stop? If one man says it does not mean a neijro, 
why may not another man say it does not mean anotlier man? If thai 
declaration is not the truth, let us p-l the Statute book in which we find 
it, and tear it out." 

There you find that Mr. Lincoln told the Aholitionists of Chicago 
that if the Declaration of Indepoiidenoo did not declare that tho 
negro was created hy tho Almighty the o(|nal of tho white man, that 
you ought to take that instrument and tear out the elausi- which 



DOUGLAS. 393 

says that all men were created equal. But let me call your atten- 
tion to another part of the same speech. You know that in his 
Charleston speech, an extract from which he has read, he dechircd 
that the negro belongs to an inferior race, is physically inferior to 
tiic white man, and should always be kept in an inferior position. 
I will now read to you Avliat he said at Chicago on that point. In 
concluding his speech at that place he remarked: — 

" My friends, I have detained you about as long as I desire to do, and I 
liave only to say, let us discard all this quibbling about this man and the 
other man, this race, and that race, and the other race being inferior, and 
therefore they must be placed in an inferior position, discarding our stand- 
ard that we have left us. Let us discard all these things, and unite as one 
people throughout this land until we shall once more stand up declaring 
that all men are created equal." 

Thus you see that when addressing the Chicago Al)olitionists he 
declared that all distinctions of race must be discarded and blotted 
out, because the negro stood on an equal footing with the white 
man; that if one man said the Declaration of Independence did not 
mean a negro when it declared all men created equal, that another 
man would say that it did not mean another man ; and hence we 
ought to discard all difference between the negro race and all other 
races, and declare them all created equal. Did old Giddings, when 
he came down among you four years ago, preach more radical Abo- 
litionism than this? Did Lovejoy, or Lloyd Garrison, or Wendell 
Phillips, or Fred Douglass ever take higher Abolition grounds than 
tliat? Lincoln told you that I had charged him with getting up 
these personal attacks to conceal the enormity of his principles, and 
then commenced talking about something else, omitting to quote 
this part of his Chicago speech which contained the enormity of his 
principles to which I alluded. He knew that I alluded to his negro- 
equality doctrines when I spoke of the enormit}- of his principles, 
yet he did not find it convenient to answer on that point. Having 
shown you what he said in his Chicago speech in reference to ne- 
groes being created equal to white men, and about discarding all 
distinctions between the two races, I will again read to you what he 
said at Charleston: — 

"I will say then, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of bringing 
about in any way, the social and political equality of the white and black 
races; that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters of the 
free negroes, or jurors, or qualifying them to hold ofHce, or having them 
to marry with white people. I will say in addition, that there is a phy- 
sical difference between the white and black races, which I suj)pose, will 



31)4 QUINCY DEBATE. OCTOBER 13, 1858. 

fort'vor forbid the two races livinj,' logt'tlu-r ujiOii terms of social and po- 
liticHl equality, and inasmuch us tlioy cannot so live, that wliile they do 
remain to;retlier there must be the position of superior and inferior, 
and 1 as much as any other man am iu favor of the suix;rior iwsitiun be- 
in^ assigned to the wliite miin." 

A Voice. — Thuts the doctrine. 

Mr. l)int<jJ(ts. — Yes, sir. that is fjood doetrino; hnt Mr. Lin- 
coln is iifraiil to advocate it in the latitude of Chicago, where he 
hopes to <jet his votes. It is good doctrine iu tlie anti- Abolition 
counties for him, and Ids Chicago speech is good doctrine in the 
Abolition counties. I assert, on the authority of these two speeches 
of Mr. Lincoln, that he holds one set of principles iu the Abolition 
counties, and a diirerent and contradictor}" set in the other counties. 
I do not question that he said at Ottawa what he quoted; but that 
only convicts him further, by proving that he has twice contradicted 
himself, instead of once. Let me ask him why he cannot avow his 
principles the same in the north as in the south, — the same in 
every county, — if he has a conviction that they are just? But I 
forgot, — be would not be a Republican, if his principles would ap- 
ply alike to every part of the countr}'. Tlie party to whicii he be- 
longs is l)Ounded and limited b}' geographical lines. \Vith their 
principles, they cannot even cross the Mississippi River ou your 
ferry-boats. They cannot cross over the Ohio into Kentucky. 
Linc<jln himself cannot visit the land of his fathers, the scenes of 
his childhood, the graves of his ancestors, and carry his Abolition 
principles, as he declared them at Chicago, with him. 

This Republican organization appeals to the North against the 
South; it appeals to Northern passion. Northern prejudice, anil 
Northern ambition, against Southern people, Soulhern Slates, and 
Southern institutions, and its only hope of success is liy that ap- 
peal. Mr. Lincoln goes on to justify himself in making a war 
upon slavery upon the ground that Frank IJlair ami (Iratz Rrown 
did not succeed in their warfare upon the institutions iu Missouri. 
Frank Blair was elected to Congress in 18.50, from the State t)f 
Mis.souri, as a Buciianan Democrat, and he turned Fremonter after 
the people elected iiim, thus belonging to one party before his elec- 
tion, and another aflerwaril. Wliat right then had he to expect, 
after having thus cheated his eonstituency, that they would sup- 
port him at another election? .^Ir. Lincoln thinks that it is his 
duty to preach a erus;ide in the Free States against slavery, because 
it is u crime, as he believes, and ought to bo extinguished, ami 



DOUGLAS. 395 

hecause the people of the Slave States will never abolish it. How 
is he going to abolish it? Down in the Southern part of the State 
he takes the ground openly that he will not interfere with slavery 
where it exists, and says that he is not now and never was in favor 
of interfering with slavery where it exists in the States. "Well, if 
he is not in favor of that, how does he expect to bring slavery in 
a course of ultimate extinction? How can he extinguish it in 
Kentucky, in Virginia, in all the Slave States by his policy, if he 
will not pursue a policy which will interfere with it in the 
States where it exists? In his speech at Springfield before the 
Abolition, or Republican, Convention, he declared his hostility to 
any more Slave States in this language: — 

"Under the operation of that policy the agitation has not only not 
ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not cease, 
until a crisis shall have been reached and ijassed. 'A house divided 
against itself cannot stand.' I believe this Government cannot endure per- • 
manentl}', half Slave and half Free. I do not expect the Union to be dis- 
solved, I do not expect the house to fall ; but I do expect it will cease to be 
divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the oppo- 
nents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the 
public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate ex- 
tinction, or its advocates will push it forward until it shall become alike 
lawful in all the States, — old as well as new, North as well as South. 

Mr. Lincoln there told his Abolition friends that this Govern- 
ment could not endure permanently, divided into Free and Slave 
States as our fathers made it, and that it must become all Free or 
all Slave ; otherwise, that the Government could not exist. How 
then does Lincoln propose to save the Union, unless by compelling 
all the States to become Free, so that the house shall not be divided 
against itself ? He intends making them all Free ; he will preserve 
the Union in that way ; and yet he is not going to interfere with 
slavery where it now exists. How is he going to bring it about? 
Why, he will agitate, he will induce the North to agitate, until the 
South shall be worried out and forced to abolish slavery. Let us 
examine the policy by which that is to be done. He first tells you 
that he would prohibit slavery everywhere in the Territories. He 
would thus confine slavery within its present limits. When he thus 
gets it confined, and surrounded, so that it cannot spread, the nat- 
ural laws of increase will go on until the negroes will be so plenty 
that they cannot live on the soil. He will hem them in until 
starvation seizes them, and by starving them to death, he will put 



30G OUINCY DEBATE. OCTOnER 13, 1858. 

slavery in tlu- course of ultiniute extinction. If he is not poinpr to 
interfen- with slavery in the States, but intends to interfere and 
prohiMt it in the Territories, and thus smother slavery out, it 
naturally follows that he can extinj^uish it only by extinguishing 
the negro race; for his policy would drive them to starvation. This 
is till' humane and Christian remedy that he proposes for the great 
crime of slavery! 

"WII.I, NOT .VRGfK TIIK QUESTION." 

Ill- tells you that I will not argue the question whether slavery 
is right or wrong. 1 tell you why I will not do it. I hold that, 
under the Constitution of the United States, each State of this 
Union has a right to do as it pleases on the subject of slavi ly. In 
Illinois we have exercised that sovereign right by prohibiting slavery 
within our own limits. I approve of that line of policy. We have 
performed our whole duty in Illinois. We have gone as far as we 
have a right to go under the Constitution of our common country. 
It is none of our business whether slavery exists in Missouri or not. 
Missouri is a sovereign State of this Union, and has the same right 
to decide the slavery question for henself that Illinois has to dec-ide 
it for herself. Hence I do n(jt choose to occupy the time allotted 
to me in discussing a question that we have no right to act upon. 

I thought that j'ou desired to hear us upon those questions 
coming within our constitutional power or action. Lincoln will 
not discuss these. What one (juestion has he discussed that comes 
within the power or calls for the action or interference of a United 
Suites Senator? He is going to discuss the rightfulness of slavery 
when Congress cannot act upon it either way. He wishes to dis- 
cuss the merits of the Dred Scott decision when, under the Con- 
stitution, a senator has no right to interfere with the decision of 
judicial tribunals. He wants your exclusive attention to two (pies- 
tions that he has no power to act upon; to two (piestions that he 
could not vote upon if he was in Congress; to two questions that 
are not practical, — in order to conceal from your attention other 
(juestions which he might be required to vote upon should he ever 
become a member of Congress. 

He U-'lls you that he does not like the Dred Scott decision. 
Suppose he does not, how is he going to help himself ? He says 
tli:it li • will reverse it. Il'iw will lie reverse it? I know cf but 
one mcde of reversing judicial decisions, and that is by appealing 
from the inferior to the superior court. But I have never yet 



DOUGLAS. 397 

learned how or where an appeal could be taken from the Supreme 
Court of the United States ! The Dred Scott decision was pro- 
nounced by the highest tribunal on earth. From that decision 
there is no appeal, this side of Heaven. Yet, Mr. Lincoln says 
he is going to reverse tlmt decision. Ijy what tribunal will he 
reverse it? Will he appeal to a mob? Does he intend to appeal 
to violence, to Lynch law? Will he stir up strife and rebellion in 
the land, and overthrow the court by violence? He does not deign 
to tell you how he will reverse the Dred Scott decision, but keeps 
appealing each day from the Supreme Court of the United States 
to political meetings in the country. He wants me to argue with 
you the merits of each point of that decision before this political 
meeting. 

I say to you, with all due respect, that I choose to abide by the 
decisions of the Supreme Court as they are pronounced. It is not 
for me to inquire, after a decision is made, whether I like it in all 
the points or not. When I used to practice law with Lincoln, I 
never knew him to be beat in a case that he did not get mad at the 
judge, and talk about appealing; and when I got beat, I generally 
thought the court was wrong, but I never dreamed of going out of 
the court:house and making a stump speech to the people against 
the judge, merely because I had found out that I did not know the 
law as well as he did. If the decision did not suit me, I appealed 
until I got to the Supreme Court; and then if that court, the high- 
est tribunal in the world, decided against me, I was satisfied, 
because it is the duty of every law-abiding man to obey the con- 
stitutions, the laws, and the constituted authorities. He who 
attempts to stir up odium and rebellion in the country against the 
constituted authorities, is stimulating the passions of men to resort 
to violence and to mobs instead of to the law. Hence, I tell you 
that I take the decisions of the Supreme Court as the law of the 
land, and I intend to obey them as such. 

But Mr. Lincoln says that I will not answer his question as to what 
I would do in the event of the court making so ridiculous a decision 
as he imagiues they would by deciding that the Free State of Illi- 
nois could not prohibit slavery within her own limits. I told him 
at Freeport why I would not answer such a question. I told him 
that there was not a man possessing any brains in America, lawyer 
or not, who ever dreamed that such a thing could be done. I told 
him then, as I do now, that by all the principles set forth in the 
Dred Scott decision, it is impossible. I told him then, as I do 



;;<J8 (,>UlNeV DEKATE. OCTOBEK i:?. 18.->s. 

now, that it is nn insult to men's understanding, and a gross 
eahunnv on the court, to presume in advance tliat it was going to 
degrade itself so low as to make a decision known to be in direct 
violation of the Constitution. 

.1 Vnicr. — The same thing was said about the Dred Scott decis- 
ion before it passed. 

^fr. J)iiii(//it.i. — Perhaps you think that the court did tlu- same 
thing in reference to the Dred Scott decision: I have lie.ird a man 
talk that way Ijefore. The principles contained in the Dred Scott 
decision had been allirmed previously in various otijer decisions. 
What court or judge ever held that a negro was a citizen? The. 
State courts had decided that question over and over again, and 
the Dred Scott decision on that point only allirmed what every 
court in the land knew to be the law. 

But I will not be drawn off into an argument upon the merits of 
the Dred Scott decision. It is enough for me to know that the Con- 
stitution of the United States created tlie Supreme Court for the 
purpose of deciding all disputed questions touching the true con- 
struction of that instrument, and when such decisions are pronounced, 
they are the law of the land, binding on every good citizen. Mr. 
liiiicola ]i:is a wvy convenient mode of arguing upon the subject. 
He holds tliat because he is a Republican that he is not bound by 
the decisions of the court, but that I, being a Democrat, am so 
bound. It may be that Kepul)licans do not hold themselves l)ound 
by the laws of the land and the Constitution of the country as ex- 
pounded b}' the courts; it may be an article in the Republican 
creed that men who do not like a decision have a right to rebel 
against it: but when Mr. Lincoln preaches that doctrine, I think lit- 
will find some honest Republican — some law-abiding man in that 
party — who will repudiate such a monstrous doctrine. The de- 
cision in the Dred Scott case is binding on every American citi/A'U 
alike; and yet Mr. Jjincoln argues that the Republicans are not 
bound by it because they are opposi-d to it, whilst Democrats are 
bound by it, becau.se we will not resist it. A Democrat cannot re- 
sist the constituteil authorities of this country; a Democrat is a 
law-abiding man; a ])emocrat stands by the Constitution and the 
laws, and relics upon liberty as protected by law, and not upon mob 
or political violence. 

I h.ivc never yet been able to make Mr. liincoln understand, nor 
I an I make any man who is determined to. support him, right or wrong, 
understand how it is tlial under tlif hied Scott decision tlu' people of 



DOUGLAS. 399 

a Territory, as well as a State, can have slavery or not, just as they 
please. 1 believe that I can explain that proposition to all consti- 
tution-loviug, law-abiding men in a way that they cannot fail to 
understand it. Chief Justice Taney, in his opinion in the Dred 
Scott case, said that, slaves being property, the owner of them has 
a right to take them into a Territory the same as he would any 
other property ; in other words, that slave property, so far as the 
right to enter a Territory is concerned, stands on the same footing 
with other property. Suppose we grant that proposition. Then 
any man has a right to go to Kansas and take his property with 
liim; but when he gets there, he must rely upon the local law to 
protect his property, whatever it may be. In order to illustrate 
this, imagine that three of you conclude to go to Kansas. One takes 
$10,000 worth of slaves, another $10,000 worth of liquors, and the 
third $10,000 worth of dry goods. When tlie man who owns the 
dry goods arrives out there and commences selling them, he finds 
that he is stopped and prohibited from selling until he gets a license, 
which will destro}' all the profits he can make on his goods to pay 
for. When the man with the liquors gets there and tries to sell, he 
finds a Maine liquor law in force which prevents him. Now, of 
what use is his right to go there with his property unless he is pro- 
tected in the enjoyment of that right after he gets there? Tlie man 
who goes there with his slaves finds that there is no law to pro- 
tect him when he arrives there. He has no remedy if his slaves run 
away to another country; there is no slave code or police regulations; 
and the absence of them excludes his slaves from the Territory just 
as effectually and as positively as a constitutional prohibition could. 
Such was the understanding when the Kansas and Nebraska bill 
was pending in Congress. Eead the speech of Speaker Orr, of South 
Carolina, iu the House of Kepresentatives, in 1856, on the Kansas 
question, and you will find that he takes the ground that while the 
owner of a slave has a right to go into a Territory and carry his 
slaves with him, that he cannot hold them one day or hour unless 
there is a slave code to protect him. He tells 3'ou that slavery 
would not exist a day in South Carolina, or in any other State, un- 
less there wa.s a friendly people and friendly legislation. Read the 
speeches of tb it giant in intellect, Alexander H. Stephens, of Georgia, 
and }(>u will find them to the same effect. Read the speeches of 
Sam Smith, of Tennessee, and of all Southern men and you will find 
that they all understood this doctrine then as we understand it 
now. 



JdO QUINCY DKHATE, OCToHKK i:J. 1858 

Mr. Lincoln cannot be iiitule to understand it, however. Down 
:it Jonesboro, he went on to argue that if it be the law that a man 
has a right to take his slaves into territory of the United States 
under the Constitution, that then a member of Congress was per- 
jured if he did not vote for a slave code. I ask him whether the 
decision of the Supreme Court is not binding upon him as well as 
on me? If so, and ho holds that he would be |)i'rjuri'd if he did not 
Vote for a slavi' code under it, I ask him whctluT, if elected to 
Congress, he will .so vote? I have a right to his answer, and I will 
tell you why. He put that rpiestion to me down in Egypt, and did 
it with an air of triumph. This was about the form of it: " In the 
event that a slave-holding citizen of one of the Territories should 
need and demand a slave code to protect/ his slaves, will you vote for 
it? " I answered him that a fundamental article in the Democratic 
creed, as put forth in the Nebraska bill and the Cincinnati platform, 
was non-intervention b}^ Congress with slavery in the States anil 
Territories, and heiu-e tiiat I would not vote in Congress for any 
code of l.iws, either for or against slavery, in any Territory. I will 
leave the pe(jpk' perfectly free to decide that question for them- 
selves. 

nOUOL.VSS DEMOCRACY DISPUTED. 

Mr. Lincoln and the Wasliington Unimi liotli think this a mon- 
strous bad doctrine. Neither ^Mr. Lincoln nor tlu' ^\■ashiugton 
i'niim likes my Freeport speech on that subject. The i'liioii in a 
late number, has been reading me out of the Democratic party be- 
can.se I hold that the people of a Territory, like those of a State, 
have the right to have slavery or not, as they please. It has de- 
voted three and a half lolunuis to prove certain propositions, one of 
which I will read. It says: — 

"Wo proiKhSf to show that Judf»(> Douphis's action in 1850 and 1854 was 
taken with r.six'cial p'fcn'ncii to the announcement of doctrine and j)ro- 
Krammo wliich was niadt- at rreeiH>rl. Tlu' declaralion at Freeport wa.s, 
that 'in his opinion tlie people can, by lawful means, I'.vclude slavery 
from a Territory before it comes in as a State ; ' and he declared tliat his 
competitor had ' lieard liim arffue the Nebraska bill on tiiat |)rinciple all 
over Illinois in 1H.1I, 1,S.")5, and 1850, and had no excuse to pretend to liave 
any do>il)l \\\)f>n that subject.'" 

The Washington I'ninn there charges me witii the monstrous 
crinu' of now proclaiming on the slump the sam»' doctrine that I 
cinicd out in IH;')!), by HUp|)orling Clay's Compromi.sc Measures. 
The l.'ninn also charges that I am now proclaiming the same doctrine 



DOUGLAS. 401 

that I did in 1854 in support of the Kansas and Nebraska bill. It 
is shocked that I should now stand where T stood in 1850, when I 
was supported by Clay, Webster, Cass, and the great men of that 
day, and where I stood in 185-4 and 1856, when Mr. Buchanan was 
elected President. It goes on to prove, and succeeds in proving, 
from my speeches in Congress on Clay's Compromise Measures, that 
I held the same doctrines at tliat time that I do now, and then 
proves that by the Kansas and Nebraska bill I advanced the same 
doctrine that I now advance. It remarks: — 

"So much for the course taken by Judge Douglas on the Compromises 
of 1850. The record shows, beyond the possibility of cavil or dispute, that 
lie expressly intended in those bills to give the Territorial Legislatures 
power to exclude slavery. How stands his record in the memorable session 
of 18.')4, with reference to the Kansas-Nebraska bill itself? We shall not 
overhaul the votes that were given on that notable measure, our space will 
not afford it. We have his own words, however, delivered in his speech 
closing the great debate on that bill on the night of March 3, 1854, to show 
that he meant to do in 1854 precisel.y what he had meant to do in 1858. The 
Kansas-Nebraska bill being upon its passage, he said: " — 

It then quotes my remarks upon the passage of the bill as 
follows: — 

" ' The principle which we propose to carry into effect by this bill is 
this: That Congress shall neither legislate slavery into any Territory or 
State, nor out of the same; but the people shall be left free to regulate 
their domestic concerns in their own way, subject only to the Constitution 
of the United States. In order to carry this principle into practical opera- 
tion, it becomes necessary to remove whatever legal obstacles might be 
found in the way of its free exercise. It is only for the purpose of carry- 
ing out this great fundamental principle of self-government that the bill 
renders the eighth section of the Missouri Act inoperative and void. 

" ' Now, let me ask, will those senators Avho have arraigned me, or any 
one of them, have the assurance to rise in his place and declare that this 
great principle was never thought of or advocated as applicable to Terri- 
torial bills, in 1850 ; that, from that session until the present, nobody ever 
thought of incorporating this principle in all new Territorial organiza- 
tions, etc., etc. 1 will begin with the Compromises of 1850. Any senator 
who will take the trouble to examine our journals will find that on the 
25th of March of that year I reported from the Committee on Territories 
two bills, including the following measures: the admission of California, a 
Territorial government for Utah, a Territorial government for New Mexico, 
and the adjustment of the Texas boundary. These bills proposed to leave 
the people of Utah and New Mexico free to decide the slavery question for 
themselves, in the precise laiiguage of the Nebraska bill now under discussion. 
A few weeks afterward the committee of thirteen took those bills and put 
a wafer between them, and reported them back to the Senate as one bill, 
26 



lOL' Ql'INfY DEliATE, OC'TOIJEII l.'J. \S5S. 

witli some slipht iimcndmeiits. One of thme anunduunts teas, thtit the 
Ttrritorial [AyUlnturnt should not legislate upon the subject of African slavery. 
I objected to this procision, ujh)!! Uw gruuiul thut it subverted the great 
priiK-iple (»f self-government, upon irhirh the bill had been oriffinalfi/ framed 
by the Territorial Committee. On the first triiil the Senate refused to strike 
it out, but subsequently di<l so, upon full debate, in order to establish that 
principle as the rule of action in Territorial organizations.' " 

The rnion comments thus upon my speech on that occasion: — 

"Thus it is seen that, in framing the Nebraska-Kansas bill, Judge 
Douglas framed it in the terms and ujMjn the model of those of Utah and 
New Mexico, and that in the debate he took pains expressly to revive the 
recollection of the voting wliich had taken place u[kh\ amendments alTect- 
ing the p<i\vers of the Territorial Legislatures over the subject of slavery 
in the bills of ISTiO, in order to give the same meaning, force, and effect to 
the Nebraska-Kansas bill on this subject as had been given to those of 
Utah and New Mexico." 

The Union proves the following propositions: First, that I sus- 
tained CMays Compromise Measures on the ground lliat they estab- 
lislied the principle of self-government in the Territories. Secondly, 
that I brought in the Kansas and Nebraska bill, founded upon the 
same principles as Clay's Compromise Measures of 1850; and, 
thirdly, that my Freeport speech is in exact accordance with those 
principles. And what do you think is the imputation that the 
Cnion casts upon me for all this? It says that my Freeport speech 
is not Democratic, and that I was not a Democrat in 1854 or in 
1850! Now is not that funny? Think that the author of the 
Kansas and Nebraska bill was not a Democrat when he introduced it! 
The Union says I was not a sound Democrat in 1850, nor in 1854, nor 
in 185G, nor am 1 in 1858. Iwcause T have always taken and now 
occupy the ground that the people of a Territory, like those of a 
State, have the right to decide for themselves whether slavery shall 
or shall not exist in a Territory! I wish to cite, for the benefit of 
the Wasiiinglon l^nimi and the followers of that sht'ct, one authority 
on that point, and I hope the HUthorit>' will b(j deemed satisfactor}' 
to that elasH of politicians. T will read from Mr. Huchanan's letter 
aceepting tiie nomination of the HcnKjeratic Convention, for the 
I'rcHidencv. Vuii know that Mr. Uuchanan, after he was nominated, 
declared to the Keystone Club, in a pui)lic speech, that he was no 
longer James IJuchanan, birt the embodiment of the Democratic 
platfonn. In his letter to the ('(immitti'e which informed him of 
his nomination a('c«'|)ting it, he delined the me.ming of the Kansas 
anil Nebraska bill and the Cincinnati platform in these words: — 



DOUGLAS. 403 

" The recent legislation of Congress respecting domestic slavery, derived 
as it has been from the original and pure fountain of legitimate political 
power, the will of the majority, promises ere long to allay the dangerous 
excitement. This legislation is founded upon princii)l('s as ancient as free 
government itself, and, in accordance with them, has simply declared that 
the people of a Territory, like those of a State, shall decide for themselves 
whether slavery shall or shall not exist within their limits." 

Thus you see that Jtimes Buchanan accepted the nomination at 
Cincinnati, on the conditions that the people of a Territory, like 
those of a State, shouhl be left to decide for themselves whether 
slavery should or should not exist within their limits. I sustained 
James Buchanan for the Presidency on that platform as adopted at 
Cincinnati, and expounded bj^ himself. He was elected President 
on that platform, and now we are told by the Washington Union 
that no man is a true Democrat who stands on the platform on 
which Mr. Buchanan was nominated, and which he has explained 
and expounded himself. We are told that a man is not a Democrat 
who stands by Clay, Webster, and Cass, and the Compromise 
Measures of 1850, and the Kansas and Nebraska bill of 1854. 
Whether a man be a Democrat or not on that platform, I intend to 
stand there as long as I have life. I intend to cling firmly to that 
great principle which declares the right of each State and each 
Territory to settle the question of slavery, and every other domestic 
question, for themselves. I hold that if they want a Slave State, 
they have a right under the Constitution of the United States to 
make it so, and if they want a Free State, it is their right to have it. 

But the Union, in advocating the claims of Lincoln over me to 
the Senate, lays down two unpardonable heresies which it says I ad- 
vocate. The first is the right of the people of a Territory, the same 
as a State, to decide for themselves the question whether slaver^' 
shall exist within their limits, in the language of Mr. Buchanan ; 
and the second -is, that a Constitution shall be submitted to the 
people of a Territory for its adoption or rejection before their ad- 
mission as a State under it. It so happens that Mr. Buchanan is 
pledged to both these heresies, for supporting which the Washington 
Union has read me out of the Democratic church. In his annual 
message he said he trusted that the example of the Minnesota case 
would be followed in all future cases, requiring a submission of the 
Constitution ; and in his letter of acceptance, he said that the people 
of a Territory, the same as a State, had the right to decide for 
themselves whether slavery should exist within their limits. 



4UI (,>riNCY DEBATE. (KTORER 13. 1S58. 

Thus you fuul that this little corrupt gang who control the 
riu'on and wish to elect Lincoln in preference to me, — because, as 
they say, of these two heresies which 1 support,— denounce Presi- 
dent IJuchanan wlu-n they denounce uie, if he stands now by the 
principles upon which he was elected. Will tlu-y pretend that he 
dt>e8 not now stand by the principles on which he was elected? Do 
they hold that he has altandoncd the Kan.sas-Nebraska bill, the Cin- 
cinnati platform, and his own letter accepting his nomination, all 
of which declare the right of the people of a Territory, the same as 
a State, to decide the slavery question for themselves? I will not 
believe that he has l)ctrayed or intends to betra}' the platform which 
elected him; l)ut if he does, I will not follow him. I will stand by 
that great principle, no matter who may desert it. I intend to 
stand by it, for the purpose of preserving peace between the North 
and the South, the Free and the Slave States. If each State will 
only agree to mind its own business and let its neighbors alone, there 
will be peace forever between us. 

"forever" free and slave. 

We in Illinois tried slaver}* when a Territory, and found it was 
not good for us in this climate, and with our surroundings, and 
hence we al)olished it. Wi' tiien adopted a Free State constitution, 
as we had a right to do. In this State we have declared that a 
negro shall not be a citizen, and we have also declared that he shall 
not be a slave. We had a right to adopt that policy. Missouri has 
just as good a right to adopt the other policy. I am now speaking 
of rights under the Constitution, and not of moral or religious 
rights. I do not discuss the morals of the people of Missouri, but 
let them settle that matter for themselves. I hold that the people 
of the slaveholding States are civilized men as well as ourselves, 
that they bear consciences as well as we, and that they are account- 
aide to (Jod and their posterit}'-, and not to us. It is for them to 
decide, therefore, the moral and religious right of the slavery (jues- 
tion for themselvi's, within their own limits. I assert that they had 
a.s much right under the Constitution to adopt the system of policy 
which they have as we had to adopt (»urs. So it is with every other 
State in this I'nioji. Let each State stand firmly by that great con- 
stitutional right, let each State mind its own business and let its 
neighbors alone, and there will be no troul)le on this (|ii('stion. 

If we will stan<l by that |)rinciple. then Mr. Lincoln will find 
that this Republic can exist forever, divided into Free and Slave 



DOUGLAS. 4U5 

States, as our fathers made it and the people of each State have 
decided. Stand by thiit great priiu-iple, and we can go on as we 
have done, increasing in wealth, in poi)ulation, in power, and in all 
tlie elements of greatness, until we shall be tlie admiration and 
terror of the world. We can go on and enlarge as our population 
increase, recpiire more room, until we make this continent one 
ocean-bound republic. Under that principle the United States can 
perform that great mission, that destiny, which Providence has 
marked out for us. Under that principle we can receive with en- 
tire safety that stream of intelligence which is constantly flowing 
from the Old World to the New, filling up our prairies, clearing our 
wildernesses, and building cities, towns, railroads, and other inter- 
nal improvements, and thus make this the asylum of the oppressed 
of the whole earth. We have this great mission to perform, and it 
can only l)e performed by adhering faithfully to that principle of 
self-government on which our institutions were all established. 

I repeat that the principle is the right of each State, each Terri- 
tory, to decide this slavery question for itself, to have slavery or 
not, as it chooses; and it does not become Mr. Lincoln, or anybody 
else, to tell the people of Kentucky that they have no consciences, 
that the}^ are living in a state of iniquity, and that they are cher- 
ishing an institution to their bosoms in violation of the law of God. 
Better for him to adopt the doctrine of ' ' Judge not, lest ye shall 
be judged." Let him perform his own duty at home, and he will 
have a better fate in the future. I think there are objects of 
charity enough in the Free States to excite the sympathies and open 
the pockels of all the benevolence we have amongst us, without 
going abroad in search of negroes, of whose condition we know 
nothing. We have enough objects of charity at home, and it is 
our duty to take care of our own poor and our own suffering, be- 
fore we go abroad to intermeddle with other peoples' business. 

My friends, I am told that my time is within two minutes of 
expiring. I have omitted many topics that I would like to have 
discussed before you at length. There were many points touched by 
Mr. Lincoln that I have not been able to take up for the want of 
time. I have hurried over each subject that I have discussed as 
rapidly as possible, so as to omit but few; but one hour and a half 
is not time sufficient for a man to discuss at length one half of the 
great questions which are now dividing the public mind. 

In conclusion, I desire to return to you my grateful acknowl- 
edgements for the kindness and the courtesy with which you have 



406 QUlXrV DEBATE. OCTOBER 13. 1858. 

U-stfiu'il to me. It i.s somethin*; romarkahle that in an audience as 
vast as this, composed of men of opposite politics and views, with 
thiir passions highly excited, there should be so much courtesy, 
kindness, and respect exhibited, not only toward one another, but 
toward tlie speakei-s; and I feel that it is due to you that I should 
thus express my gratitude for the kindness with which you have 
treated rac. 



MR. LINCOLN'S REJOINDER. 

Mv Frienps: Since Judge Douglas has said to you in bis con- 
clusion that he had not time in an hour and a half to answer all I 
had said in an hour, it follows of course that I will not be able to 
answer in half an hour all that he said in an hour and a half. 

I wish to return to Judge Douglas my profound thanks for his 
public annunciation here to-day, to be put on record, that his s^'s- 
tem of policy in regard to the institution of slavery contcmphites 
that it slttifl hist forrvcr. We are getting a little nearer the true issue 
of this controversy, and I am profoundly grateful for this one sen- 
tence. Judge Douglas asks you, " Why cannot the institution of 
slavery, or rather, why cannot the nation, part Slave and part Free, 
continue as our fathers niadi; it, fun vi r' " In tiio first place, I in- 
sist that our fathers did not make this nation half Slave and half 
Free, or part Slave and part Free. I insist that they found the in- 
stitution of slavery existing here. They did not make it so, but 
they left it so because they knew of no way to get rid of it at that 
time. 

When Judge Douglas undertakes to say that, as a matter of 
choice, the fathers of the Government made this nation i)art Slave 
and part Free, In: a^siimes vltat is liistoricnlly a fdhchotui. More than 
that : when the fathers of the Government cut off the source of 
slavery by the abolition of the slave trade, and adopted a system 
of restricting it from the new Territories where it had not existed, 
I maintain that the}' placed it where they understood, and all sensi- 
ble men understood, it was in tlie (H)urse of ultimate extinction; and 
when Judge Douglas asks me why it cannot continue as our fathers 
made it, I ask him why he and his friends could not let it remain 
as our fathers made it? 

It is precisely all I ask of him in relation to the institution of 



LINCOLN. 407 

slfiver}^, that it shall be placed upon the basis that our fathers 
placed it upon. Mr. Brooks, of ^South Carolina, once said, and 
truly said, that when this Government was established, no one ex- 
pected the institution of slavery to last until this day, and that the 
men who formed this Government were wiser and better than the 
men of these days; but the men of these days had experience which 
the fathers had not, and thnt experience had taught them the inven- 
tion of the cotton-gin, and this had made the perpetuation of the 
institution of slavery a necessity in this country. Judge Douglas 
could not let it stand upon the basis where our fathers placed it, but 
removed it, and j^ut it npon the cotton-gin husis. It is a question, 
therefore, for him and his friends to answer, why they could not let 
it remain where the fathers of the Government originally placed it. 

I hope nobody has understood me as trying to sustain the doc- 
trine that we have a right to quarrel with Kentucky, or A'iiginia, or 
any of tlie Slave States, about the institution of slavery, — thus giv- 
ing the Judge an opportunity to make himself eloquent rnd valiant 
against us in fighting for their rights. I expressly declared in my 
opening ppeech that I had neither the inclination to exercise, nor the 
belief in the existence of, the right to interfere with the States of 
Kentucky or Virginia in doing as they pleased with slavery or any 
other existing institution. Then what becomes of all his eloquence 
in behalf of the rights of the States, which are assailed by no living 
man? 

But I have to hurry on, for I have but a half hour. The Judge 
has informed me, or informed this audience, that the Washington 
Union is laboring for my election to the United States Senate. This 
is news to me, — not very ungrateful news either. [Turning to Mr. 
W. H. Carlin, who was on the stand] — I hope that Carlin will be 
elected to the State Senate, and will vote for me. [Mr. Carlin 
shook his head.] Carlin don't fall in, I perceive, and I suppose he 
will not do much for me; but I am glad of all the support I can get, 
anywhere, if I can get it without practising any deception to obtain 
it. In respect to this large portion of Judge Douglas's speech in 
which he tries to show that in the controversy between himself and 
the Administration party he is in the right, I do not feel myself at 
all competent or inclined to answer him. I say to him, "Give it to 
them, — give it to them just all j-ou can;" and, on the other hand, I 
say to Carlin, and Jake Davis, and to this man Wogley up here in 
Hancock, "Give it to Douglas, — just pour it into him.'' 



408 Ql'INCY DEBATK. OCTOBER 13. 1858. 

Now, in regard to this matter of the Dred Scott decision, I wish 
to say a word or two. After all, the Judge will not say whether, if 
a decision is made, holding that the people of the .Sfntts cannot ex- 
clude shivery, he will support it or not. He oljstinately refuses to 
say what he will do in that case. The Judges of the Supreme 
Court as obstinately refused to say what they would do on this sub- 
ject. Hefore this I n-niindcd him that at Galeshurg he said the 
judges hail expressly lU-clared the contrary, and yon rememlx-r that 
in my opening speech 1 told liini 1 had the book containing that 
decision here, and I woulil thank him to lay his finger on the place 
where any such thing was said. He has occupied his hour and a 
half, and he has not ventured to try to sustain his assertion. lie 
never trill. 

REVERSING DECISIONS. 

But he is desirous of knowing how we are going to reverse the 
Dred Scott decision. Judge Douglas ought to know how. Did not 
he and his political friends find a way to reverse the decision of that 
same court in favor of the constitutionalit}' of the National Bank ? 
Did n't they find a way to do it so elf ectuall}' that they have reverseil 
it as completely as any decision ever was reversed, so far as its 
practical operation is concerned? And let me ask you did n't Judge 
Douglas find a way to reverse the decision of our Supreme Court 
when it decided that Carlin's father — old Governor Carlin — had 
not the constitutional power to remove a Secretarj' of State? Did 
he not appeal to the " mobs," as he calls them? Did he not make 
speeches in the lobby to show how villainous that decision was, and 
how it ought to be overthrown? Did he not succeed, too, in getting 
an Act passed by the Legislature to have it overtlirown? .\iitl 
didn't he himself sit down on that bench as one of the five adiled 
judges, who were to overslaugh the four old ones, — getting his 
name of " Judge" in that way, and no other? If tlu're is a villainy 
in using disrespect or making opposition to Supreme Court deci- 
sions, I commend it to Judge Douglas's earnest consideration. I 
know of no man in the State of Hlinois who ought to know so well 
about /loic vntrh villainy it takes to oppose a decision of the Supreme 
Court as our honoral)le friend Stephen A. Douglas. 

Judge Douglas also makes the declaration that 1 say the Demo- 
cmts are iKJund by the Dred Scott decision, while the Republicans 
are not. In the sense in which he argues, I never said it; but I will 
tell yon what I have said :iiid wli:il I do not hesitate to repeat to- 



LINCOLN. ^()!( 

clay. I have said that as the Democrats believe that tleeisioii t(^ i.c 
correct, and that the extension of slavery is affirmed in the National 
Constitution, they are bound to support it as such; and I will tell 
you here that General Jackson once said each man was bound to 
support the Constitution "as he understood it." Now, Judges 
Douglas understands the Constitution according to the Dred Scott 
decision, and he is bound to sufjport it as he understands it. I 
understand it another way, and tlierefore I am bound to support it 
in the way in which I understand it. And as Judge Douglas be- 
lieves that decision to be correct, I will re-make that argument if I 
have time to do so. 

Let me talk to some gentleman down thei-e among you who looks 
me in the face. We will say you are a member of tlie Territorial 
Legislature, and, like Judge Douglas, you believe that the right to 
take and hold slaves there is a constitutional right. The first thing 
you do is to siccar you will support the Constitution and all rights 
guaranteed therein; that 3'ou will, whenever your neighbor needs 
your legislation to support his constitutional rights, not with- 
hold that legislation. If you withhold that necessary legis- 
lation for the support of the Constitution and constitutional 
rights, do you not commit perjury? I ask every sensible man 
if that is not so? That is undoubtedly just so, say what you 
please. Now, that is precisely what Judge Douglas says, that 
this is a constitutional right. Does the Judge mean to say that the 
Territorial Legislature in legislating may, ])y withholding necessary 
laws, or by passing unfriendly laws, nullify that constitutional right? 
Does he mean to say that? Does he mean to ignore the proposition 
so long and well established in law, that what you cannot do 
directly, you cannot do indirectly? Does he mean that? 

The truth about the matter is this: Judge Douglas has sung 
paeans to his "Popular Sovereignty" doctrine until his Supreme 
Court, co-operating with him, has squatted his Squatter Sovereignty 
out. But he will keep up this species of humbuggery about Squat- 
ter Sovereignty. He has at last invented this sort of do-nothing 
Sovereignty, — that the people may exclude slavery by a sort of 
" Sovereignty " that is exercised by doing nothing at all. Is not 
that running his Popular Sovereignty down awfully? Has it not 
got down as thin as the homoepathic soup that was made by boiling 
the shadow of a pigeon that had starved to death? But at last, 
when it is brought to the test of close reasoning, there is not even 
that thin decoction of it left. It is a presumption impossible 



410 Ql'INCY DERATE. OCTOBER 13. 1858. 

in the domain of thought. It is precisely no other than the put- 
ting of that most unphilosophical proposition, that two bodies can 
occupy the same space at the same time. The Dred Scott decision 
covers iUv whok' <,aoiind, and wliih' it occupies it, there is no room 
even for the shadow of :i starved pij!;eon to occupy the same 
frnuind. 

Jiidjic Doughis, in reply to what I have said aboiil having upon 
u previous occasion made the speecli at Ottawa as the one he, took 
an extract from, at Charleston, say.s it only shows that 1 practiced 
the deception twice. Now, my friend.s, are any of you obtuse 
enough to swallow that? Judge Douglas had said 1 li:iil made a 
speech at Charleston that I would not make up north, and I turned 
around and answered him hy showing I //(/'/ made that same speech 
up north, — had made it at Ottawa ; made it in his hearing; made 
it in the Abolition District, — in Lovejo^^'s District, — in the per- 
sonal presence of Lovejoy himself, — in the same atmosphere 
exactly in which I had made my Chicago speech, of which he com- 
plains so much. 

Now, in relation to my not having said anything about the 
quotation from tlie Chicago speecli: lie thinks that is a terrible 
subject for me to handle. Why, gentlemen, I can show you that 
the substance of the Chicago speech I delivered two years ago in 
"Eg3'pt,'' as lie calls it. It was down at Springfiehl. That 
speech is here in this book, and I could turn to it and read it to 
you but for the lack of time. I have not now the time to read it. 
[Voices: "Read it, read it."'] No, gentlemen, I am obliged to 
use discretion in disposing most advantageously of m}' lirief time. 
The Judge has taken great exception to my adopting the lieretical 
statement in the Declaration of Independence, that "all men are 
created equal," ami he has a great deal to say about negro equalit}'. 
I want to say that in sometimes alluding to the Declaration- of 
Independence, I have only uttered tiie sentiments that Henry Clay 
used to h(»ld. Allow me to occupy your time a moment with what 
he said. Mr. Clay was at (uie time called upon in Indiana, and in 
a way tiiat I suppose was very insulting, to liberate his slaves; and 
lie made a written reply to that application, and one portion of it is 
in these words : — 

" What is ihcfdit/idatio/i of this up[)oal to mo in Indinna to lilxTuto tlH> 
slaves under my care in Ki'iilucky? it is a fjcucral {Icrlaratioii in tlio act 
unnoiincin^ to the world llie indepondi-nce of the thirteen American colo- 
nii-.s, Ibiil ' nicn are created ajual.' Now, us an abstract principle, Uicrc w 



LINCOLN. 411 

no doubt of the truth of that declaration, and it is desirable in the original 
comtruction of society, and in organized societies, to keep it in view as a 
great fundiimental principle." 

When I sometimes, in relation to the organization of new socie- 
ties in new countries, wiiere the soil is clean and clear, insist that 
we should keep that principle in view, Judge Douglas will have 
it that I want a negro wife. He never can be brought to under- 
stand that there is any middle ground on this subject. I have 
lived until my fiftieth year, and have ncA-er had a negro woman 
either for a slave or a wife, and I think I can live fifty centuries, 
for that matter, without having had one for eithei*. I maintain 
that you may take Judge Douglas's quotations from my Chicago 
speech, and from my Charleston speech, and the Galesburg speech, 
— in his speech of to-day, — and compare them over, and I am 
willing to trust them with you upon his proposition that they show 
rascality or double-dealing. I deny that they do. 

THE "SPRINGFIELD" RESOLUTIONS. 

The Judge does not seem at all disposed to have peace, but 
I find he is disposed to have a personal warfare with me. He 
says that my oath would not be taken against the bare word of 
Charles H. Lanphier or Thomas L. Harris. Well, that is altogether 
a matter of opinion. It is certainly not for me to vaunt my word 
against oaths of these gentlemen, but I will tell Judge Douglas 
again the facts upon which I ^^ dared " to say they pi'oved a forger}'. 
I pointed out at Galesburg that the publication of these resolutions 
in the Illinois State Register could not have been the result of 
accident, as the proceedings of that meeting bore unmistakable 
evidence of being done by a man who Jcnew it was a forgery; that 
it was a publication partly taken from the real proceedings of the 
Convention, and partly from the proceedings of a Convention at 
another place, — which showed that he had the real proceedings 
before him, and taking one part of the resolutions, he threw out 
another part, and substituted false and fraudulent ones in their 
stead. I pointed that out to him, and also that his friend Lan- 
phier, who was editor of the Register at that time and now is, must 
have known how it was done. Now, whether Jie did it, or got some 
friend to do it for him, 1 could not tell, but he certainly knew all 
about it. I pointed out to Judge Douglas that in his Freeport 
speech he had promised to investigate that matter. Does he now 



412 QUINCY DFJiATE, OCTOHER 13, la-^S. 

s:iy he did not makf that proiuisi'? I Imvi* a riglit to ask. u-liy he 
did iii't Li 'J) it/ I rail upon him to tt-ll lu'iv to-ihiy why he did not 
ket-'p that promise. That fraud has lieen traced up so that it lii'.s 
between him, Harris, and lianphier. There is little room for 
escape for Lanphier. Lanphier is doing the Judge good service, 
and Douglas desires his word to be taken for the truth. lie desires 
Lanphier to be Uiken as authority in what he states in his news- 
paper. He desires Harris to be taken as a man of vast credibility; 
and when this thing lies among them, they will not press it to 
show where the guilt really belongs. Now, as he has said that 
he would investigate it, and implied that he would tell us the result 
of his investigation, I demand of him to tell why he did not inves- 
tigate it. if he did not; and if he did, u/i>/ he irunt tell the irsult. I 
call ui)on him for that. 

This is the third time that Judge Douglas has assumed that he 
learned al>out these resolutions by Harriss attempting to use them 
against Norton on the floor of Congress. I tell Judge Douglas the 
public records of the country show that he himself attempted it 
upon TnimbuU a month before Harris tried them on Norton; that 
Harris had the opportunity of handug it from him, rather than he 
from Harris. 1 now ask his attention to that part of the record 
on the case. My friends, I am not disposed to detain you longer 
in regard to that matter. 

1 am told that I still have five minutes left. There is another 
matter I wish to call attention to. lie says, when he discovered 
there was a mistake in that case, he came forwanl magnanimously, 
without my calling his attention to it, and explained it. 1 will tell 
you how he became so magnanimous. When the m wspapers of 
our side had discovered and published it, and put it beyond his 
power to deny it, then he came forward and made a virtue of neces- 
sity by acknowledging it. Now he argues that all the point there 
was in those resolutions, although never passed at Springfield, is 
retained by their being passed at other localities. Is that true? 
He said I had a hand in passing them, in his opening si)eech, — 
that I was in the Convention and helped to pass them. Ho the 
resolutions touch me at all? It strikes me there is some diirerence 
l)etween hohling a man responsible -for an act which lie has not done, 
and holding him responsible for an act that he has done. Vou will 
judge whetlier there is any dilFerence in the '^sjiots." And he has 
tiiken credit for great magnanimity in coming forward and acknowl- 
eilging what is proved on him beyond even the capacity of Juilge 



LINCOLN. 



413 



Dongljis to deny; and he has more capacity in that way than any 
other living man. 

Then he wants to know why I won't withdraw the charo-e in re- 
gard to a conspiracy to make slavery national, as he has withdrawn 
the one he made. May it please his worship, I will withdraw it 
when it is j^rovcn false on me as that was proven false on him. I will 
add a little more than that. I will withdraw it whenever a reason- 
able man shall be brought to believe that the charge is not true. 

I have asked Judge Douglas's attention to certain matters of fact 
tending to prove the charge of a conspiracy to nationalize slavery, 
and he says he convinces me that this is all untrue because Buchanan 
was not in the country at that time, and because the Dred Scott 
case had not then got into the Supreme Court; and he says that I 
say the Democratic owners of Dred Scott got up the case. I never 
did say that. I defy Judge Douglas to show that I ever said so, 
for I never uttered if . [One of Mr. Douglas's reporters gesticulated 
affirmatively at Mr. Lincoln.] I don't care if your hireling does 
say I did, I tell you myself that I never said the " Democratic " owti- 
ers of Dred Scott got tip the case. I have never pretended to know 
whether Dred Scott's owners were Democrats, or Abolitionists, or 
Free-soilers or Border Ruffians. I have said that there is evidence 
about the case tending to show that it was a made up case, for the 
purpose of getting that decision. I have said that that evidence 
was very strong in the fact that when Dred Scott was declared to be 
a slave, the owner of him made him free, showing that he had had 
the case tried and the question settled for such use as could be made 
of that decision ; he cared nothing about the property thus declared 
to be his by that decision. But my time is out and I can say no 
more. 



TilK LAST .101 XT DELATE, AT ALTON. 

October 15, 1S5S. 
SENATOR DOUGLAS'S SPEECH. 

L.VDIES AND Gentle.men: - It is now nearly four montlis since 
the i-:uivass between y\v. Liiuithi and myself commenced. On the 
ItJlh of June the Kepuljlican Convention as.sembletl at Si)rin<^rield 
ami ncnninated Mr. Lincoln as their candidate for the United States 
Senate, and he, on that occasion, delivered a speech in which he 
laid down what he understood to be the llepublican creed, and the 
platform on which he proposed to stand during the contest. 

The principal points in that speech of Mr. Lincoln's were: First, 
that this Government could not endure permanently divided into 
Free and Slave States, as our fathers made it ; that they must all 
become Free or all become Slave ; all become one thing, or all be- 
come the other, — otherwise this Union could not continue to ex- 
ist. I give you his opinions almost in the identical language he 
used. II is second propcjsition was a crusade against the Supreme 
Court of the United States because of the Dred Scott decision, urg- 
ing as an especial reason for his opposition to that decision that it 
deprived the negroes of the rights and Ijenefits of that clause in the 
Constitution of the United States whicli guarantees to the citizens 
of each State all the rights, privileges, and immunities of the citi- 
zens of the several States. 

On the 1 0th of Jul}- I returned home, and delivered a speech to 
the people »»f Chicago, in wliich I announced it to be my purpose to 
appeal to the peoi)le of Illinois to sustain the course I had i)nrsui'd 
in Congress. In tiiat speech 1 joined issue with Mr. Liiieoln on the 
points which he had presented. Thus there was an issue; clear and 
distinct made up lietween us on these two ])ropositions laid down in 
the speech of Mr. Lincoln at Springfield, and controverted by me in 
my reply to him at Chicago. 

On the next day, the 11th of July, Mr. Lincoln replied to me at 
Chicago, explaining at some length and reallirming the positions 
wliich he had taken in iiis Springfield speech. In that Chicago 
speech he even went further than he had before, and uttered senti- 
ments in regard to the negro being on an e(|uality with the white 
man. He adopted in support of this positi(jn the argument which 
I 111] 



DOUGLAS. 415 

Lovejoy tind Codding and other Abolition lecturers hud made 
familiar in the northern and central portions of the State; to wit, 
that the Declaration of Independence having declared all men free 
antl equal, by divine law, also that negro equality was an inalien- 
able right, of which tlicy could not be deprived. He insisted, in 
that speech, that the Declaration of Independence included the 
negro in the clause asserting that all men were created eiiual, 
and went so far as to say that if one man was allowed to take the 
position that it did not include the negro, others might take the 
position that it did not include other men. He said that all these 
distinctions between this man and that man, this race and the other 
race, must be discarded, and we must all stand by the Declaration 
of Independence, declaring that all men were created equal. 

The issue thus being made up between Mr. Lincoln and myself 
on three points, we went before the people of the State. During 
the following seven weeks, between the Chicago speeches and our 
first meeting at Ottawa, he and I addressed large assemblages of the 
people in many of the central counties. In my speeches I confined 
myself closely to those three positions w^hich he had taken, contro- 
verting his proposition that this Union could not exist as our fathers 
made it, divided into Free and Slave States ; controverting his 
proposition of a crusade against the Supreme Court because of the 
Dred Scott decision ; and controverting his proposition that the Dec- 
laration of Independence included and meant the negroes as well as 
the white men, when it declared all men to be created equal. 
I supposed at that time that these propositions constituted a dis- 
tinct issue between us, and that the opposite positions we had taken 
upon them we would be willing to be held to in every part of the 
State. I never Intended to waver one hair's breadth from that 
issue, either in the north or the south, or wherever I should address 
the people of Illinois. I hold that when the time arrives that I 
cannot proclaim my political creed in the same terms, not only in 
the northern, but the southern part of Illinois, not only in the 
Northern, but the Southern States, and wherever the American flag 
waves over American soil, that then there must bo something wrong 
in that creed ; so long as we live under a common Constitution, so 
long as we live in a confederacy of sovereign and equal States, 
joined together as one for certain purposes, that any political creed 
is radically wrong which cannot be proclaimed in every State and 
every section of that Union, alike. 

I took up Mr. Lincoln's three propositions in my several speeches, 



nC. ALTON DKHATE. OCTOIJKli IT). ls:)8. 

nnalyzeil thoiii, ami jxtintt-il tmt wliat I hcliovcd to bo the radical 
i-rrois rontaim-d in tlu'in. First, in regard to his doctrino that this 
Goveninu'nt was in violation of the law of God, whii-h says that a 
house divided against itself cannot stand, I repudiated it as a slan- 
der upon the immortal framers of our C»)nstitution. I then said, 
I have often repeated, and now again assert, that in my opinion 
our Government can endure forever, divided into Free and Slave 
Stat«'8 as our fathers made it, — each State having the right to pro- 
hibit, abolish, or sustain slavery, just as it pleases. 

This Government was made upon the great basis of the sov- 
ereignty of the States, the right of each State to regulate its own 
domt'.^tic institutions to suit itself; ami that right was conferred 
with the umlerstanding and expectation that inasmuch as each 
locality had separate interests, each locality must have dilTeient 
and distinct local and domestic institutions, corrcspomling to its 
wants and interests. Our fathers knew when tliey made the Gov- 
ernment that the laws and institutions which were well adapted to 
the Green Mountains of Vermont were unsuited to the rice planta- 
tions of South Carolina. They knew then, as well as we know 
now, that the laws and institutions which would be well adapted to 
tlkC beautiful prairies of Illinois would not be suited to the mining 
regions of California. They knew that in a Republic as broad as 
this, having such a variety of soil, climate, and interest, there must 
necessarily be a corresponding variety of local laws, — ^ the polic}' 
and institutions of each State adapted to its condition and wants. 
For this reason this Union was estal)lished on the right of each 
State to do as it pleased on the (juestion of slavery, and every other 
(piestion ; and the various States were not allowed to complain of, 
much less interfere with, the policy of their neighbors. 

Suppose the doctrine advocated b}' Mr. Lincoln and tiie Abo- 
litionists of this day had prevailed when tho Constitution was made, 
what would have been the result? Imagine for a moment that Mr. 
Lincoln had been a raemoer of the Convention that framed the Con- 
stitution of the Unitcil States, an<l tliat when its members were 
about to sign that wondi-rful document, he had arisen in that (\)n- 
vention as he did at Springfield this summer, and. addressing him- 
self to the President, liad said, " A houst' divided against itself 
cannot stand ; this (Jovernment, divided into Free and Slave States 
cannot endure, they must all be Free or all be Slave ; they must all 
be one thing, or all the other, — otherwise, it is a violation of the 
law of (jod, and cannot continue to exist ;" — suppose Mr. Lincoln 



DOUGLAS. 417 

had convinced that body of sages that that doctrine was sound, 
what would hiive been the result? llemember that the Union was 
then composed of thirteen States, twelve of which were slavehold- 
ing, and one free. Do you think that the one Free State would 
have outvoted the twelve slaveholding States, and thus have secured 
the abolition of slavery? On the other hand, would not the twelve 
slaveiiolding States have outvoted the one Free State, and thus have 
fastei:ed slavery, by a constitutional provision, on every foot of the 
American Republic forever ? 

You see that if this Abolition doctrine of Mr. Lincoln had pre- 
vailed when the Government was made, it would have established 
slavery as a permanent institution in all the States, whether they 
wanted it or not; and the question for us to determine in Illinois 
now, as one of the Free States, is whether or not we are willing, 
having become the majority section, to enforce a doctrine on the 
minority which we would have resisted with our hearts' blood had it 
been attempted on us when we were in a minority. How has the 
South lost hor power as the majority section in this Union, and how 
have the Ftee States gained it, except under the operation of that 
principle which declares the right of the people of each State and 
each Territory to form and regulate their domestic institutions in 
their own way? It was under that principle that slavery was abol- 
i.3hed in New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, 
Now Jersey, and Pennsylvania; it was under that principle that 
one half of the slaveholding States became free; it was under that 
principle that the number of Free States increased until, from being 
one oat of twelve States, we have grown to be the majority of States 
of the whole Union, with the power to control the House of Repre- 
sentatives and Senate, and the power, consequentl}', to elect a Presi- 
dent by Northern votes, without the aid of a Southern State. Having 
obt; lined this power under the operation of that great principle, are 
you now prepared to abandon the principle and declare that merely 
because we have the power you will wage a war against the South- 
ern States and their institutions until you force them to abolish 
slavery everywhere ? 

After having pressed these arguments home on Mr. Lincoln for 
seven weeks, publishing a number of my speeches, we met at 
Ottawa in joint discussion, and he then began to crawfish a little, 
and let himself down. I there propounded certain questions to him. 
Amongst others, I asked him whether he would vote for the admis- 
sion of any more Slave States, in the event the people wanted them. 

37 



418 AI.T(»N lH:i;.\Ti:, OCTOliKIt 1."). \S58. 

He would not answer. I Ihon told him tlmt if ho did not answer 
tho <iut'stion there, 1 wouKl renew it at Freeport, and would then 
trot him tlown into Ejrvpt and again put it Ui him. Well, at Free- 
jjort, knowinii that the next joint disenssion took place in E^ypt, 
and being in dreatl of it, he did answer my (juesticju in regard to no 
more Slave States, in a mode which he hoped would be satisfactory 
to me, and accomplish the object he had in view. I will show you 
what his answer was. AfU'r saying that he was not pledged to the 
Republican doctrine of " no more Slave States," he declared: — 

" I state to you very frankly, thiit I .should bo e.xcecdinjcly sorry over 
to be put ill thi' ixjsition of liiivinjr to jkiss u|)on that question. I sliould 
be e.xceedinjrly jjhid to know that there would never be uuuther Slave Slate 
admitted into this Union.'' 

Here permit mo to remark, that I do not think the people will 
ever force him into a position against his will. lie went on to 
say: — 

" But 1 must add, in ropard to this, that if slavery shall bo kept out of 
the Territory durinfr the Territorial existence of any one ^'iven Territory, 
and then the people should, having a fair chance and clear field, when 
they come to adopt a constitution, if tjiey should do the extraordinary 
thing of adopting a slave constitution uninliuenced by the actual presence 
of the institution among them, I see no alternative, if we own the country, 
but we must admit it into the Union." 

That answer Mr. Lincoln supposed would satisfj' the Old Line 
Whigs, composed of Keutuckiaus and Virginians, down in the 
southern part of the State. Now, what does it amount to ? I do- 
sired to know whether he would vote to allow Kansas to come into 
the Union with slavery or not, as her people desired, lie would not 
answer, but in a roundabout way said that if slavery should be kept 
out of a Territory during the whole of its Territorial existence, ami 
then the people, when they adopted a State Constitution, asked 
admission as a Slave State, he supi)osed ho would have to lot the 
State come in. The case I put to him was an entirely ditrerenl one. 
I desired to know whether he Avoidd vote to admit a State if Con- 
gress had not prohibited slavery in it during its Territorial exist- 
ence, as Congress never pretended to do under Clay's Compromise 
measures of 18.'")0. He would not answi-r, and T have not yet l)een 
able to get an answer fron) him. I have asked him wliether ho 
would vote to admit Nebraska if her people asked to come in as a 
State with a constitution rei-ogni/ing slavery, ami he refn.sed to 
answer. I have put the (pU'stion to him with reference to New 



DOUGLAS. 419 

Mexico, and he has not uttered a word in answer. I have enum- 
erated the Territories, one after another, putting the same question 
to him with reference to each, and he has not said, and will not say 
whether, if elected to Congress, he will vote to admit any Territory 
now in existence with sucli a constitution as her people may adopt. 
He invents a case which does not exist, and cannot exist under this 
Government, and answers it ; but he will not answer the question 
1 put to him in connection with any of the Territories now in 
existence. 

The contract we entered into with Texas when she entered the 
Union obliges us to allow four States to be formed out of the old 
State, and admitted with or without slavery, as the respective in- 
habitants of each may determine. I have asked Mr. Lincoln three 
times in our joint discussions whether he would vote to redeem that 
pledge, and he has never yet answered. He is as silent as the grave 
on the subject. He would rather answer as to a state of the case 
which will never arise than commit himself by telling what he would 
do in a case which would come up for his action soon after his elec- 
tion to Congress. Why can he not say whether he is willing to allow 
the people of each State to have slavery or not as they please, and 
to come into the Union, when they have the requisite population, as 
a Slave or a Free State as they decide? I have no trouble in 
answering the question. I have said everywhere, and now repeat 
it to you, that if the people of Kansas want a Slave State they have 
a right, under the Constitution of the United States, to form such a 
State, and I will let them come into the Union with slavery or with- 
out, as they determine. If the people of any other Territory de- 
sire slavery, let them have it. If they do not want it, let them 
prohibit it. It is their business, not mine. It is none of our busi- 
ness in Illinois whether Kansas is a Free State or a Slave State. It 
is none of your business in Missouri whether Kansas shall adopt 
slavery or reject it. It is the business of her people, and none of 
yours. The people of Kansas have as much right to decide that 
question for themselves as you have in Missouri to decide it for 
yourseh'es, or we in Illinois to decide it for ourselves. 

And here I may repeat what I have said in every speech I have 
made in Illinois, that I fought the Lecompton Constitution to its 
death, not because of the slavery clause in it, but because it was 
not the act and deed of the people of Kansas. I said then in Con- 
gress and I say now, that if the people of Kansas want a Slave 
State, they have a right to have it. If they wanted the Lecomp- 



420 ALTON DKliATK. OCTOBER 15, 1858. 

ton Constitution, they had Ji right to have it. I was opposed to 
that constitution because I did not believe that it was the act and 
deed of the people, l)ut, on the contrary, the act of a small, pitiful 
minority actinj; in tlie name of the majority. When at last it was 
determined to send that constitution back to the pe()j)le, and, ac- 
cordingl}', in August last, the question of admission under it was 
submitted to a po|)uhir vote, the citi/.eiis rejected it i)y nearly ten 
to one, thus showing conclusively that I was right when 1 said that 
the Lccompton Constitution was not tJhe act and deed of tiie people 
of Kansas, ami did not eml)ody their will. 

1 hold that there is no power on earth, iiniltr our .system of gov- 
ernment, which has the right to force a constitution upon an unwill- 
ing people. Suppose that there had been a majority of ten to one 
in favor of slavery in Kansas, and suppose there had been an 
AI)olition President and an Abolition Administration, and by some 
means the Abolitionists succeeded in forcing an Abolition Constitu- 
tion on those slaveholding people, would the people of the South 
have submitted to that act for one instant? Well, if you of the South 
would not have submitted to it a day, how can 3'ou, as fair, honor- 
able, and honest men, insist on putting a slave constitution on a 
people who desire a Free State? Your safety anil ours depends 
upon both of us acting in good faith, and living up to that great 
principle which asserts the right of ever}' people to form and regu- 
late their domestic institutions to suit themselves, subject only to 
the Constitution of the United States. 

Most of the men who denounced my course on the Lecompton 
question objected to it, not because I was not right, but because they 
thought itexi>edient at that time, for the sake of keeping the party 
together, to do wrong. I never knew the Democratic party to 
violate any one of its principles, out of poTu'V or expediency, that it 
did not pay the dcld with sorrow. There is no safel\' or success for 
our party unless we always do right, and trust the conse(iuenees to 
God and the people. I chose not to dei)art from principle for the 
sake of expediency on the Lecompton (jiu'stioii, ami 1 never iateiul 
to do it on that or any other question. 

Hut I am told that I would have bei-n all right if 1 had only voted 
for the Knglish bill after Lecompton was killed. Vou know a 
general pardtju was granted to all political olfenders on the Lecomp- 
ton (juestion, provided they would only vote for the English bill. I 
did not accept the benefits of that p.ardon, for the reason that 1 had 
been right in the course i liatl pursued, and hence ilid not re(iuire 



DOUGLAS. 421 

any forgiveness. Let us see how the result luas been worked out. 
English brought in his bill referring the Leeorapton Constitution 
back to the people, with the provision that if it was rejected, Kan- 
sas should be kept out of the Union until she had the full ratio of 
population required for a member of Congress, — thus in elFect de- 
claring that if the people of Kansas would only consent to come 
into the Union under the Leeorapton Constitution, and have a Slave 
State when they did not want it, they should be admitted with a 
population of 35,000; but that if they were so obstinate as to insist 
upon having just such a constitution as they thought best, and 
to desire admission as a Free State, then they should be kept 
out until they had 93,420 inhabitants. I then said, and I now re- 
peat to you, that whenever Kansas has people enough for a Slave 
State she has people enough for a Free State. I was and am willing 
to adopt the rule that no State shall ever come into the Union until 
she has the full ratio of population for a member of Congress, pro- 
vided that rule is made uniform. I made that proposition in the 
Senate last winter, but a majority of the senators would not agree 
to it; and I then said to them. If you will not adopt the general 
rule, I will not consent to make an exception of Kansas. 

I hold it is a violation of the fundamental principles of this Gov- 
ernment to throw the weight of Federal power into the scale, either in 
favor of the Free or the Slave States. Equality among all the States 
of this Union is a fundamental principle in our political s^'stem. 
We have no more right to throw the weight of the Federal Govern- 
ment into the scale in favor of the slaveholding than the Free States, 
and least of all should our friends in the South consent for a moment 
that Congress should withhold its powers either way when they know 
that there is a majority against them in both Houses of Congress. 

DOUGLAS AND THE BUCHANAN ADMINISTRATION. 

Fellow-citizens, how have the supporters of the English bill 
stood up to their pledges not to admit Kansas until she obtained a 
population of 93,420 in the event she rejected the Lecompton Con- 
stitution? How? The newspapers inform us that English himself, 
whilst conducting his canvass for re-election, and in order to secure 
it, pledged himself to his constituents that if returned he would 
disregard his own bill and vote to admit Kansas into the Union with 
such population as she might have when she made application. We 
are informed that every Democratic candidate for Congress in all 
the States where elections have recently been held was pledged 



422 ALTON DKHATE, OCTOBER 15, 1858. 

aj^aiiist iht' En«!;lish bill, with pt-Tluips one or two exceptions. Now, 
if 1 liad only clone as tliese anli-Leeouipton men who voted for tlie 
English bill in Congress, pledging themselves to refuse to admit 
Kansas if she refused to become a Slave State until she had a popu- 
lation of ;t.'{,4L!0, and then returned to their people, forfeited liicir 
pledge, and made a new pledge to admit Kansas at any time she 
applied, without regard to population, 1 would have had no trouI)le. 
You saw the whole power and patronage of the Federal Govern- 
ment wielded in Indiana, Ohio, and l*enn.sylvania to re-elect anti- 
Lecompton men to Congress who voted against Lecompton, then 
voted for the English bill, and then denounced the English bill, uutl 
pledged themselves to their people to disreganl it. 

My sin consists in not having given a pledge, and then in not 
having afterward forfeited it. For that reason, in this State, every 
postmaster, every route agent, every collector of the ports, and 
every Federal ollice-holder forfeits his head the moment he ex- 
presses a preference for the Democratic candidates against Lincoln 
and his Abolition associates. A Democratic Administration which 
we helped to bring into power deems it consistent with its fidelity 
to principle and its regard to duty to wield its power in this State 
in behalf of the Republican Abolition candidates in every county 
and every Congressional District against the Democratic part}'. All 
I have to say in reference to the mtitter is, that if that Administra- 
tion have not regard enough for principle, if thoy are not sulliciently 
attached to the creed of the Dem3^'ratic party, to bury forever their 
personal hostilities in order to succeed in carrying out our glorious 
principles, I have. I have no personal dilliculty with Mr. Buchanan 
or his Cabinet. He chose to make certain recommendations to Con- 
gress, as he had a right to do, on the Lecompton question. I couM 
not vote in favor of them. I had as much right to jutlge for my- 
self how I should vote as he had how he should recommend. Il«' 
unilertook U) say to me, " If you do not vote as I tell you, 1 will 
take oir the heads of your friends." I replied to him, " You did not 
elect me. I represent IHinois, and I am accountalile to Illinois, as 
my constituency, and to(ind , but not to the President or to any 
other power on earth. 

And n<»w this warfare is made on me because I woidd not sur- 
render my c(jnvictionH of duty, bi-cause 1 woukl not abandon my 
constitiUMicy, and receive the orders of the executive authorities how 
I should vote in the Senate of the United States. I hoKl that an 
attempt to control the Senate on the part of the Executive is sub- 



DOUGLAS. 423 

versive of the principles of our Constitution. The Executive 
department is independent of the Senate, and the Senate is inde- 
pendent of the President. In matters of legislation the President 
has a veto on the action of the Senate, and in appointments and 
treaties the Senate has a veto on the President. He has no more 
right to tell me how I shall vote on his appointments than I have to 
tell him whether he shall veto or approve a l)ill that the Senate has 
passed. Whenever you recognize the right of the Executive to say 
to a senator, "Do this, or I will take off the heads of your 
friends, you convert this Government from a republic into a despot- 
ism. Whenever you recognize the right of a President to say to a 
member of Congress, "Vote as I tell you, or I will bring a power 
to bear against you at home wliich will crush you," you destroy the 
independence of the representative, and convert him into a tool of 
Executive power. I resisted this invasion of the constitutional 
rights of a senator, and I intend to resist it as long as I have a 
voice to speak or a vote to give. Yet Mr. Buchanan cannot pro- 
voke me to abandon one iota of Democi'atic principles out of revenge 
or hostility to his course. 1 stand by the platform of the Democratic 
party, and by its organization, and support its nominees. If there 
are any who choose to bolt, the fact only shows that they are not as 
good Democrats as I am. 

My friends, there never was a time when it was as important for 
the Democratic party, for all national men, to rally and stand 
together, as it is to-day. We find all sectional men giving up past 
differences and uniting on the one question of slavery; and when 
we find sectional men thus uniting, we should unite to resist them 
and their treasonable designs. Such was the case in 1850, when 
Clay left the quiet and peace of his home, and again entered 
upon public life to quell agitation and restore peace to a distracted 
Union. Then we Democrats, with Cass at our head, welcomed 
Henry Clay, whom the whole nation regarded as having been pre- 
served by God for the times. He became our leader in that great 
fight, and we rallied around him the same as the Whigs, rallied 
around Old Hickory in 1832 to put down nullification. 

Thus you see that whilst Whigs and Democrats fought fearlessly 
in old times about banks, the tariff, distribution, the specie circular, 
and the sub-treasury, all united as a band of brothers when the 
peace, harmony, or integrity of the Union was imperiled. It was 
so in 1850, when Abolitionism had even so far divided this country. 
North and South, as to endanger the peace of the Union; Whigs 



j21 AI.ToN liKIiA'l'FC. OtTOlJKIi If.. 1858. 

ami Democrats uniti'd in t'sUil)lishiii<j the rompromiso Mcasiiros of 
that year, and rt'storing trantiuility and ffooil li'clinjj:. These meas- 
ures passed on the joint action of tlie two parties. They rested on 
tiie fjreat principle that the pet>ph' of each State and each Territory 
should l)e left perfectly free to form ami regulate their domestic 
institutions to suit themselves. Von Whigs and we Democrats jus- 
tifu'd them in that principle. In is.lt, when it became necessary 
to organize till- Territories of Kansas and Nehra.ska, I brought for- 
ward the bill on the same principle. In the Kansas-Nebraska l>ill 
you find it declared to be the true intent and meaning of the Act 
not to legislate slavery into any State or Territory', nor to exclude 
it therefrom, bat to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form 
and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way. I stand 
on that same platform in 1858 that I did in 1850, 1854, and 185G. 
The Washington ('iiinn, preti'udiiig to be the organ of the Ad- 
ministration, in the numl)er of the 5th of this mouth devotes three 
columns ami a iialf to establish these propositions: first, that Doug- 
las, in his Freeport speech, held the same doctrine that he did in his 
Nebraska bill in 1854; second, that in 1854 Douglas justilied the 
Nebraska bill upon the ground that it was based upon the same 
principle as Clay's Compromise Measures of 1850. The Union thus 
proved that Douglas was the same in 1858 that he was in 1856, 
1854, and 1850, and consequently argued that he was never a Dem- 
ocrat. Is it not funny that I was never a Democrat? There is no 
pretense that I have changed a hair's breadth. The Union proves 
by my speeches that I explained the Compromise Measures of 1850 
just as I do now, and that I explained the Kansas and Nebraska 
bill in 1854 just as I did in my Freeport speech, and yet says that 
I am n(it a Democrat, and cannot be trusted, because I have not 
changed during the whole of that time. It has occurred to me 
that in 1854 the author of the Kansas and Nebraska i)ill was eon- 
.^idcred a pretty good Democrat. It has occurred to me that in is.'id, 
when [ was exerting every nerve and every energy for James 
Buchanan, standing on the same platform then that I do now, that 
I was a pretty good Democrat. They now tell me that I am not a 
Democrat, because I assert that the people of a Territory, as well as 
those of a State, have the right to decide for them.selves whether 
slavery can or cannot exist in such Territory. Let me read what 
Jumes IJuchanan said on that point when he accepted the Demo- 
cratic nomijialion for tlie Presidency in 1850. In hi.-^ letter of ac- 
ceptance, he u.seil the following language: — 



DOUGLAS. 425 

"The recent legislation of Congress respecting domestic slavery, de- 
rived as it has been from the original and pure fountain of legitimate 
political power, the will of the majority, promises ere long to allay the 
dangerous excitement. This legislation is founded upon principles as 
ancient as free government itself, and, in accordance with them, has 
simply declared that the people of a Territory, like those of a State, shall 
decide for themselves whether slavery shall or shall not exist within their 
i i m i ts. ' ' 

DOUGLAS, DAVIS, AND STEPHENS. 

Dr. Hope will there find my answer to the question he pro- 
pounded to me before I commenced speaking. Of course, no man 
will consider it an answer who is outside of the Democratic organ- 
ization, bolts Democratic nominations, and indirectly aids to put 
Abolitionists into power over Democrats. But whether Dr. Hope 
considers it an answer or not, every fair-minded man will see that- 
James Buchanan has answered the question, and has asserted that 
the people of a Territory, like those of a State, shall decide for 
themselves whether slavery shall or shall not exist within their 
limits. I answer specifically if 3"0u want a further answer, and 
say that while under the decision of the Supreme Court, as recorded 
in the opinion of Chief Justice Taney, slaves are property like all 
other property, and can be carried into any Territory of the United 
States the same as any other description of property, j^et when you 
get them there they are subject to the local law of the Territory 
just like all other property. You will find in a recent speech de- 
livered b}' that able and eloquent statesman, Hon. Jefferson Davis, 
at Bangor, Maine, that he took the same view of this subject that 
I did in my Freeport speech. He there said : — 

"If the inhabitants of anj- Territory should refuse to enact such laws 
arid police regulations as would give security to their property or to his, 
it would be rendered niore or less valueless in proportion to the difficulties 
of holding it without such protection. In the case of property in *he 
labor of man, or what is usually called slave property, the insecuritj' 
would be so great that the owner could not ordinarily retain it. There- 
fore, though the right would remain, the remedy being withheld, it 
would follow that the owner would be practically debarred, by the cir- 
cumstances of the case, from taking slave property into a Territory where 
the sense of the inhabitants was opposed to its introduction. So much for 
the oft-repeated fallacy of forcing slavery upon any community." 

You will also find that the distinguished Speaker of the present 
House of Representatives, Hon. Jas. L, Orr, construed the Kansas 
and Nebraska bill in this same wa}^ in 1856, and also that great 
intellect of the South, Alex. H. Stephens, put the same construe- 



42(> ALTON DLUATL:. OCTOBER 1"., 1858. 

lion upon it in Conjiress that 1 iliil in my Freeport speech. The 
whole South is rallying to the support of tlie doetrine th:it if the 
people of :i Territory want shivery, they have a right to have it, 
an«l if llu-y t^lo «iot want it, that no power on earth can force it upon 
them. 1 IjoUl that thi-rt' is no principle on earth more sacred to all 
the friends of freedom tlian that wliirh says that n<» institution, no 
law, no constitution, should he forci'd on an unwilling people con- 
trary to their wishes; and I assert that the Kansas and Nebraska 
bill contains that principle. It is the great principle contained in 
that bill. It is the principle on which James Buchanan was made 
I'residcnt. Without that principle, he never would have been made 
President of the United States. I will never violate or abandon 
that doctrine, if I have to stand alone. I have resisted the bland- 
ishments and threats of power on the one side, and seduction on 
the other, and have stood immovably for that princij)le, lighting 
for it when assailed by Northern mobs, or threatened by Southern 
hostility. I have (Icrciidcd it against the North and the- Soulli, and 
I will defend it again.^t whoever as.5ails it, and I will f<^llow it 
wherever its logical conclusions lead me. I say to you that there 
is but one hope, one safety for this country, and that is to stand 
immovably by that principle which declares the right of each State 
and each Territory to decide these questions for themselves. This 
Government was founded on thai principle, and must be adminis- 
tered in the same sense in which it was founded. 

But the Abolition party really think that under the Declaration 
of Independence the negro is eijual to the; white man, and that 
negro ecjuality is an inalienable right conferred by tiie Almighty, 
and hence that all luimau laws in violation of it an- null and void. 
With such men it is no use for me to argue. I holil that the sign- 
ers of the Dec-laration of Independence luul^ no reference to negroes 
at all when they declared all men to be created c(iual. They <lid 
not mean negroes, nor the savage Indians, nor the Fiji Islanders, 
nor any other barl»arous race. They were speaking of white men. 
They alluded to men of European birth and European descent, — 
to white men, and to none others, — when they declari'd that doc- 
trine. 1 hold that this Government was established on the white 
basis. It was established by white men for the benefit of white 
men and their posterity forever, and should be administered by 
white ni" II. and Uftne others. 

lint it does not follow, Iiy any means, that mi-rely because the 
negro is not a citizen, and nien-ly because he is not our equal, that, 
therefore, he should be a slave. On the contrary, it dues follow 



DOUGLAS. 427 

that we ought to extend to the negro race, and to all other depen- 
dent races, all the rights, all the privileges, and all the immunities 
which they can exercise consistently with the safety of society. 
Humanity requires that we should give them all these privileges; 
Christianity commands that we should extend those privileges to 
them. The question then arises, What are those privileges, and 
what is the nature and extent of them? My answer is, that that 
is a question which each State must answer for itself. We in 
Illinois have decided it for ourselves. We tried slavery, kept it 
up for twelve years, and finding that it was not profitalde, we 
abolished it for that reason, and became a Free State. We adopted 
in its stead the policy that a negro in this State shall not be a slave 
and shall not be a citizen. We have a right to adopt that policy. 
For my part, I think it is a wise and sound policy for us. You in 
Missouri must judge for yourselves whether it is a wise policy for 
you. If you choose to follow our example, very good; if you 
reject it, still well, — it is your business, not ours. So with Ken- 
tuck}-. Let Kentucky adopt a policy to suit herself. If we do 
not like it we will keep away from it; and if she does not like 
ours, let her stay at home, mind her own business, and let us alone. 
If the people of all the States will act on that great priufiple, and 
each State mind its own business, attend to its own affairs, take 
care of its own negroes, and not meddle with its neighbors, then 
there will be peace between the North and the South, the East and 
the West, throughout the whole Union. 

Why can we not thus have peace? Why should we thus allow 
a sectional party to agitate this country, to array the North against 
the South, and convert us into enemies instead of friends, merely 
that a few ambitious men may ride into power on a sectional 
hobby? How long is it since these ambitious Northern men wished 
for a sectional organization? Did any one of them dream of a 
sectional party as long as the North was the weaker section and the 
South the stronger? Then all were opposed to sectional parties; 
but the moment the North obtained the majority in the House and 
Senate by the admission of California, and could elect a President 
without the aid of Southern votes, that moment ambitious Northern 
men formed a scheme to excite the North against the South, and 
make the people be governed in their votes by geographical lines, 
thinking that the North, being the stronger section, would outvote 
the South, and consequently they, the leaders, would ride into 
office on a sectional hobby. I am told that my hour is out. It was 
very short. 



428 ALTON DKHATK. OCTOBER 1"), 1858. 

Mli. I,INC0LN*S REPLY. 

Ladies ani> (Jemtlemen: I have been somewhat, in my own 
mhul, eoiupliuu'iiteil by a hirge portion of Judge Douglas's speech, 
— I mean that portion wliich he devotes to the controversy between 
himself and tiie present Administration. This is the seventh time 
Judge Douglas and myself have met in these joint discussions, and 
he has been gradually improving in regard to iiis war wiCh the 
Administration. At Quincy, day before j'esterday, he was a little 
more severe upon the Administration than I had heard him upon 
any occasion, and I took pains to compliment him for it. I then 
told him to •' (Jive it to them with all the power he had;"' and as 
some of them were present, I told them I would be very much 
obliged if they would give it to him in about the same way. I take 
it he has now vastly improved upon the attack he made then upon 
the Administration. I ilatter myself he has really taken my advice 
on this subject. All I can say now is to re-commend to him and to 
them what I then commended, — to prosecute the war against one 
another in the most vigorous manner. I say to them again: ''Go 
it, husband ! — Go it, bear ! " 

There is one other thing I will mention before I leave this 
branch of the discussion, — although I do not consider it much of 
my business, any way. I refer to that part of the Judge's remarks 
where he undertakes to involve Mr. Buchanan in an inconsistency. 
He reads something from Mr. Buchanan, from which he undertakes 
to involve him in an inconsistency; and he gets something of a 
cheer for having done so. I would onl}' remind the Judge that 
while be is very valiantly fighting for the Nebraska bill and the 
repeal of the Missouri Compromise, it has been but a little while 
since he was the vdllitnt (idrnaite of the .Missouri Compromise. I 
want to know if Buchanan has not as much right to be inconsistent 
as Douglas has ? Has Douglas the exdusirc right, in this country, 
of being on oil sidrs of all qiirstionsf Is nobody allowed that high 
privilege but him.self ? Is he to have an entire monopoly on that 
subject ? 

So far as Judge Douglas addressed liis speech to me, or so far 
as it was aliout iiic, it is my liusiucss to i):iy some attention to it. 
I have heard the Judge state two or three times what he has stated 
to-day, — that in a speech which I made at Springfield, Illinois. I 
had in a very especial manner complained that the Supreme Court in 
the Dred Scott case had decided that a negro could never be a citi- 



LINCOLN. 429 

zen of the United States, I have omitted by some accident hereto- 
fore to analyze this statement, and it is required of me to notice it 
now. In point of fact it is untrue. I never have complained espe- 
cially/ of the Dred Scott decision because it held that a negro could 
not be a citizen, and the Judge is always wrong when he says I ever 
did so complain of it. I have the speech here, and I will thank 
him or any of his friends to show where I said that a negro should 
be a citizen, and complained especially of the Dred Scott decision 
])ecause it declared he could not be one. I have done no such thing; 
and Judge Douglas, so persistently insisting that I have done so, 
has strongly impressed me with the belief of a predetermination on 
his part to misrepresent me. He could not get his foundation for 
insisting that I was in favor of this negro equality anywhere else as 
well as he could by assuming that untrue proposition. 

WHAT THE DRED SCOTT COURT DECIDED. 

Let me tell this audience what is true in regard to that matter-, 
and the means by which they may correct me if I do not tell them 
truly is by a recurrence to the speech itself. I spoke of the Dred 
Scott decision in my Springfield speech, and I was then endeavoring 
to prove that the Dred Scott decision was a portion of a system or 
scheme to make slavery national in this country. I pointed out 
what things had been decided by the court. I mentioned as a fact 
that they had decided that a negro could not be a citizen; that they 
had done so, as I supposed, to deprive the negro, under all circum- 
stances, of the remotest possibility of ever becoming a citizen and 
claiming the rights of a citizen of the United States under a certain 
clause of the Constitution. I stated that, without making any com- 
plaint of it at all. I then went on and stated the other points deci- 
ded in the case ; namely, that the bringing of a negro into the State 
of Illinois and holding him in slavery for two years here was a mat- 
ter in regard to which they would not decide whether it would make 
him free or not; that they decided the further point that taking him 
into a United States Territory where slavery was prohibited by Act 
of Congress did not make him free, because that Act of Congress, as 
they held, was unconstitutional. I mentioned these three things as 
making up the points decided in that case. I mentioned them in a 
lump, taken in connection with the introduction of the Nebraska 
bill, and the amendment of Chase, offered at the time, declarator}- 
of the right of the people of the Territories to exclude slavery, which 
was voted down by the friends of the bill. I mentioned all these 



430 ALTON DKHATE, orTOHER 1"., ISoS. 

things together, as evidence tending to prove a combination and 
conspiracy to make the institution of shivery national. In that con- 
nection and in that way 1 nu-ntioned the ilei-ision on the point tiiat 
a negro conhl not be a citizen, and in no other connection. 

Out of this, Judge Douglas builds up his beautiful fabrication 
of luv purpose to introduce a perfect social and political eiiuality 
bi'twecn the white and black raci-s. His assertion that I niadi' an 
••especial objection ' (that is his exact language) t«) the decision on 
this account, is untrue in point of fact. 

LINCOLN AND ri,.\V. 

Now, whiK' I am upon tiiis sul)ject, and as Henry Clay has been 
alludfd to, 1 desire to place myself, iu connection with Mr Clay, as 
nearly right before this people as may be. 1 am quite aware what 
the Judge's object is here by all these allusions. He knows that we 
aiv before an audience having strong sympathies southward, by rela- 
tionship, place of birth, and so on. He desires to place me in an 
extremely Abolition attitude. He read upon a former occasion, and 
alludes, without reading, to-day, to a portion of a speech which I 
delivered in Chicago. In his quotations from that speech, as he 
has made them upon former occasions, the extracts were taken in 
such a way as, I suppose, brings them within the definition of what 
is called tjurUtncf, — taking portions of a speech which, when taken 
by themselves, do not present the entire sense of the speaker as ex- 
pressed at the time. I propose, therefore, out of that same speech, 
to show how one portion of it which he skipped over (taking an ex- 
tract before and an extract after) will give a ditlerent idea, and the 
true idea 1 intended to convey. It will take me some little time to 
read it, but I believe I will occupy tlu- time that way. 

You have heard him frcfjuently allude to my controversy with 
him in regard to the Declaration of Independence. I confess that 
I have had a struggle with Judge Douglas on that matter, and I 
will try brielly to place myself right in regard to it on this occasion. 
1 said — ^and it is between the extracts Judge Douglas has taken 
from this speech, and put in iiis published speeches: — 

" It miiy be arfjui'd Hint llicrr an' otTtain cuiidilious that make nocossi- 
ti(>s and im|>ost* tln-m \\\Hn\ us, and to tlio cxtonl that a n<H-es.sity is im- 
|M)Si-cl u|M*n a man he mii.st Kul)mit to it. I thiidv tliat was Hie eoiulilion 
in wlii«di we found ourselves when we cslablished ilii.s (Jovernment. We 
had KJaveH amon^' us, we cotdd not >jei our Constitution unless wo per- 
mitted them to n-main in sIjiv.tv. w.- mnl'l ii"i smir.' ili.' imo.I w.- iliil 



LINCOLN. 43X 

secure if we grasped for more: and liaving by necessity submitted to 
that mucii, it does not destroy the principle tiiat is the charter of our 
liberties. Let the charter remain as our standard." 

Now, I have upon all occasions declared as strongly as Judge 
Douglas against the disposition to interfere with the existing insti- 
tution of slavery. You hear me read it from the same speech from 
which he takes garbled extracts for the purpose of proving upon 
me a disposition to interfere with the institution of slavery, and 
establish a perfect social and political equality between negroes and 
white people. 

Allow me while upon this subject briefly to present one other 
extract from a speech of mine, more than a year ago, at Springfield, 
in discussing this very same question, soon after Judge Douglas 
took his ground that negroes were not included in the Declaration 
of Independence: — 

"I think the authors of that notable instrument intended to include all 
men, but they did not intend to declare all men equal in all respect.^. They 
did not mean to say all men were equal in color, size, intellect, moral de- 
velopment, or social capacity. They defined with tolerable distinctness in 
what respects they did consider all men created equal, — equal in certain 
inalienable rights, among which are life, libert3% and the pursuit of hap- 
piness. This they said, and this they meant. They did not mean to assert 
the obvious untruth that all were then actually enjoying that equalitj', nor 
yet that they were about to confer it immediately upon them. In fact, 
they liad no power to confer such a boon. They meant simply to declare 
the riffht, so that the enforcement of it might follow as fast as circumstances 
should permit. 

" They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society which should 
be familiar to all, and revered by all ; constantly looked to, constantly la- 
bored for, and even though never perfectly attained, constantly' approxi- 
mated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and 
augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people, of all colors, ev- 
erywhere." 

There again are the sentiments I have expressed in regard to the 
Declaration of Independence upon a former occasion,- — sentiments 
which have been put in print and read wherever anybody cared to 
know what so humble an individual as myself chose to say in regard 
to it. 

At Gralesburg, the other day, I said, in answer to Judge Doug- 
las, that three years ago there never had been a man, so far as I 
knew or believed, in the whole world, who had said that the Dec- 
laration of Independence did not include negroes in the term ' ' all 
men." I re-assert it to-day. I assert that Judge Douglas and all 



43L' ALTON DEBATE. OCTOBEli 15, IS-IS. 

bi8 friends may search the whole records of the country, and it will 
be a matter of great astonishment to me if they shall be able to 
find that one human l)einij three years ajjo had ever uttered the 
astonndinj; sentiment that the term "all men ' in tlie Declaration 
did not include the negro. 

Do not let me be misunderstood. I know that more than three 
years ago there were men who, finding this assertion constantly in 
the way of their schemes to bring about the ascendency and per- 
petuation of slavery, iftnin/ tin tnttit i>f it. I know that Mr. Cal- 
houn and all tlii' politicians of his school denied the truth of the 
Declaration. 1 know that it ran along in the mouth of some South- 
ern men for a period of years, ending at last in that shameful, 
though rather forcible, declaration of Pettit of Indiana, ui)on the 
Iloor of the United States Senate, that the Declaration of Independ- 
ence was in that respect "a self-evident lie, " rather than a self- 
eviilent truth. But I sa}', with a perfect knowledge of all this 
hawking at the Declaration without directly attacking it, that three 
years ago there never had lived a man who had ventured to assail 
it in the sneaking way of pretending to Ijclieve it, and then as.sert- 
ing it did not include the negro. I believe the first man who ever 
said it was Chief Justice Taney in the Dred Scott case, and the next 
to him was our friend Stephen A.Douglas. And now it has Ijet-onie 
the catchword of the entire party. I would like to call upon his 
friends everywhere to consider how they have come in so short a 
time to view this matter in a way so entirely dilFerent from thi ir 
former belief; to ask whether they are not being borne along by an 
irresistible current, — whither, the}' know not. 

In answer to my proposition at Galesburg hxst week, I see that 
some man in ('hicago has got up a letter, adtlressed to the Chicago 
Tliivs, to show, as he professes, that somebody /u/'/ said so before; 
and he signs himself '> An Old Line Whig, "if I remember correctly 
In the first place, I would say he vas uot an Old Line Whig. I am 
somewhat acciuainted with Old Line Whigs. I was with the Old Line 
Whigs from the origin to the end of that party; I became pretty 
well accjuainted with them, and I know they always had some sense, 
whatever else 3'ou could ascribe to them. I know there never was 
one who had not more sense than to try to show l)y the cviilence he 
prodiues that some man had, prior to the time I named, said that 
negroes were not includrd in the term "all men" in tlu' Declara- 
tion itf Independence. What is the evidence ln' produc-t-s? I will 
bring forward his evidence, and let you see what he olFers by wa}" of 



LINCOLN. 



433 



showing that somebody more than three years ago had said nef^roes 
were not included in the Dec-hiratioii. He brings forward part of 
a speech from Henry Clay, — //^r- part of the speech of Henry Clay 
which I used to bring forward to prove precisely the contrary. I 
guess we are surrounded to some extent to-day by the old friends 
of Mr. Clay, and they will be glad to hear anything from that 
authority. While he was in Indiana a man presented a petition to 
liberate his negroes, and he (Mr. Clay) made a speech in answer to 
it, which I suppose he carefully wrote out himself and caused to be 
published. I have before me an extract from that speech which 
constitutes the evidence this pretended "Old Line Whiw " at Chi- 
cago brought forward to show that Mr. Clay did n't suppose the 
negro was included in the Declaration of Independence. Hear what 
Mr. Clay said: — 

"And what is the foundation of this appeal to me in Indiana to liberate 
the shivos under my care in Kentucky? It is a j^eneral declaration in the 
act announcing to the world the independence of the tiiirteen American 
colonies, that all men are created equal. Now, as an abstract principle, 
thereis no doubt of the truth of that declaration; and it is desirable, in the orig- 
inal construction of society and in organized societies, to keep it in view as a 
great fundamental principle. But, then, I apprehend that in no society 
that ever did exist, or ever shall be formed, was or can the equality asserted 
among the members of the human race be practically enforced and carried 
out. There are portions, large portions, — women, minors, insane, culprits, 
transient sojourners, — that will alwa3'S probably remain subject to the 
government of another portion of the community. 

"That declaration, whatever may be the extent of its import, was 
made by the delegation 'of the thirteen States. In most of them slavery 
existed, and had long existed, and was established by law. It was intro- 
duced and forced upon the colonies by the paramount law of England. Do 
you believe that in making that declaration the States that concurred in 
it intended that it should be tortured into a virtual emancipation of all the 
slaves within their respective limits? Would Virginia and other Southern 
States have ever united in a declaration which was to be interpreted into 
an abolition of slavery among them? Did any one of the thirteen colonies 
entertain such a design or expectation? To impute such a secret and un- 
avowed purpose, would be to charge a political fraud upon the noblest 
band of patriots that ever assembled in council, — a fraud upon the Confe- 
deracy of the Revolution; a fraud upon the union of those States whose 
Constitution not only recognized the lawfulness of slavery, but permitted 
the importation of slaves from Africa until the year 1808." 

This is the entire quotation brought forward to prove that some- 
body previous to three years ago had said the negro was not in- 
cluded in the term ' ' all men " in the Declaration. How does it do 

28. 



4:il ALTON DKHATE, OC^TOHEIi 15. 1858. 

so? In wlial way has it a ti'mU'iK-y t«) piovr tlial? Mr. Clay says 
it in tntr as tin ahstnict principle that all mi'ii are (.Teatt'cl equal, Itiit 
that we cannot practically apply it in all cases. He illustrates this 
hy bringinj; forward the cases of females, minora, and insane 
persons, with whom it cannot be enforced; liut he sa^'S it is true as 
an abstract principle in the organization of society as well as in 
organized society and it should be kept in view as a fundamental 
principle. Let me read a few words more before I add some com- 
ments of my own. Mr. Clay sa3s, a little further on : — 

••■I dosiro no concoalmcnt of my opinions in regard to tlu' institution of 
sliiViTV. I knik up<in it as a f^rt'at evil, and dt-cply laini-ril tliat wi; liave 
ili-rivi'd it from I lit- i)ari'iit (iovcriimt'iil and from our ancostors. I wish 
every slave in the United Stales was in the country of his ancestors. But 
here they are, and the question is. How can tliey be best dealt willi? If a 
state of nature e.\isted. and we wi-re about to lay the foundations of society. 
no man would be more HtrungUj opposed than I nhould be to incorporating the 
injttitution <<f nhirery among its elements.'" 

Now, here in this same book, in this same speech, in this same 
extract, brought forward to prove that Mr. Clay held that the negro 
was not included in the Declaration of Independence, we find no such 
statement on his part, but instead the declaration th<it it is <t great 
funthnnental tmith which should be constantly kept in view in the or- 
ganization of society and in societies already organized. But if I 
say a word about it; if I attempt, as Mr. Clay said all good men ought 
to do, to keep it in view; if, in this "organized society," I ask to 
have the pul)lic eye turned upon it; if I ask, in relation to the 
organization of new Territories, that the public ej'e should l»e turned 
ui>on it, — forthwith I am villified as you bear me to-day. What 
have I done that I have not the license of Henry Clay's illustrious 
example here in doing? Have I done aught that I have not his 
authority for, while niaintainiiig that in organizing new Territories 
and societies, this fundamental principle shoulil be regarde*!, and in 
organized societ}' h<d(rmg it up to the public view and recogni/ing 
what /(/ recognized as the great principle of free government? 

• Ami when this new principle — this new proposition that no 
human being ever thought of three years ago — is i)rought forward, 
/ emnlxit it as having an evil tendency, if n<»t an evil design. 1 
<-ombat it as having a U-ndency to dehumanize the negro, to Uike 
away from him the right of ever striving to be a man. 1 combat it 
'JA being one of the thousand things constantly done in these days 



LINCOLN. 435 

to prepare the public mind to make property, and uotliing but prop- 
erty, of the negro in all the States of this Union. 

Hut there is a point that I wish, before leaving this part of the 
discussion, to ask attention to. I have read and I repeat the words 
of Henry Clay: — 

"I desire no concealment of my opinions in regard to the institution of 
slavery. I look upon it as a great evil, and deeply lament that we have 
dorived it from the parent (iovernment and from our ancestors. I wish 
every slave in the United States was in the country of his ancestors. Hut 
here they are; the question is, How can they best be dealt with? If a state 
of nature e.xisted, and we were about to lay the foundations of society, no 
man would be more strongly opposed than I should be to incorporate the 
institution of .slavery among its elements." 

The principle upon which 1 have insisted in this convass is in 
relation to laying the foundations of new societies. I have never 
sought to apply these principles to the old States for the purpose of 
abolishing slavery in those States. It is nothing but a miserable 
perversion of what I liave said, to assume that I have declared 
Missouri, or any other Slave State, shall emancipate her slaves ; I 
have proposed no such thing. But when Mr. Clay says that in 
laying the foundations of societies in our Territories where it does 
not exist, he would be opposed to the introduction of slavery as an 
element, I insist that we have his loarrant — his license — for insist- 
ing upon the exclusion of that element which he declared in such 
strong and emphatic language was most hateful to him. 

Lincoln's views on the "house divided" speech. 

Judge Douglas has again referred to a Springfield speech in 
which I said "a house divided against itself cannot stand. ' The 
Judge has so often made the entire quotation from that speech that 
I can make it from memory. I used this language: — 

"We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with 
the avowed object and confident promise of putting an end to the slavery 
agitation. Under the operation of this policy, that agitation has not only 
not ceased, but has constantly augmented. \\\ my opinion it will not cease 
until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. 'A house divided 
against itself cannot stand.' I believe thii Government cannot endure 
permanently, half Slave and half Free. I do not expect the house to fall, 
but Fdo e.xpect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one tiling, 
or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further 
spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief 
that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it 



436 ALTON DEBATE. OCTOBER 15, 1858. 

forwiiril till it shall bccomo jilikc lawful in all llu' Stutis, — old as well as 
lifW, North ;i< wll as Smith." 

Thai extrac't ami tho si'iitiments expn'sst-d in it have Itccn I'x- 
treiurly otronsivo to Jiulj^e ])i»n<;his. Ik' has warivd upon thrin as 
Satjin wars upon the Hible. His perversions upon it arc cndlfss. 
Ht'rt* now are my views upon it in brii-f. 

I said Wf wrri' now far into tlie fiflh year sinec a policy was ini- 
tiated with the avowed oliject and confident promise of puttinjjf an 
end to tlie shivery agitation. Is it not so? Wlien that Nehraska 
bill was brought forward four years ago last January, was it not for 
the " avowed object" of putting an viu\ to the slavery agitation ? 
We were to have no more agitation in Congress; it was all to be 
banished to the Territories. 

By the way, T will remark here that as Judge Douglas is very 
fond of complimenting Mr. Crittenden in these days, Mr. Crittenden 
has said there was a falsehood in that whole business, for there was 
//(* sliiv< r>i nifitntioti itf t/tdt tinn' to (i/hii/. We were for a little while 
'/iii'f on the troublesome thing, and that very allaying i)laster of 
Judge Douglass stirred it up again. But was it not understood or 
intimated with the "confident promi.se " of putting an end to the 
slavery agitation? Surely it was. In every speech you heard 
Judge I)(»uglas make, tuitil he got into this "imbroglio, " as they 
call it, with the Administration about the Lecompton Constitution, 
every speech on that Nebraska bill was full of felicitations that we 
wvrejiint II f thf Old of the slavery agitation. The last tip of the 
last joint of the old serpent's tail was just drawing out of view. 
But has it proved so? I have asserted that under that policy that 
agit.ation " has not only not ceased, l)ut has constantly augnicnled." 
When was there ever a greater agitation in Congress than last winter? 
When was it as great in the country as to day? 

There was a collateral object in the introduction of that Nebraska 
policy, which was to clothe the people of ^le Territories with a su- 
peri<»r degree of .self-governnu'Ut beyond what they had ever had 
before. The first object and the main one of confi-rring upon the 
people a higher degree of ''self-government" is a question of fact 
to be fleterniined by you in answer to u single (luestion. Have you 
ever heanl or known of a people anywhere on earth who had as lit- 
tle to do as, in the first instance of its u.se, the people of Kansas 
li:id with this same right of " self goveniim lit ' ? In its main 
policy and in its collateral object, it has been nothing but a living, 
creeping lie from the time of its introduction till to-day. 



LINCOLN. 437 

1 have intimated that I tliought the agitation would not cease 
until a crisis should have been reached and passed. I have statiMl 
in what way I thought it would be reached and passed. I have said 
that it might go one way or the other. We might, by arresting the 
further spread of it, and placing it where the fathers originally 
placed it, put it where the public mind should rest in the belief that 
it was in the course of ultimate extinction. Thus the agitation may 
cease. It may be pushed forward until it shall become alike lawful 
in all the States, old as well as new. North as well as South. 1 
have said, and I repeat, my wish is that the further spread of it 
may be arrested, and that it may be placed where the puljlic mind 
shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction. 
I have expressed that as my wish. I entertain the opinion upon 
evidence suHicient to my mind, that the fathers of tliis G<jveninK'nt 
placed that institution where the public mind did rest in the belief 
that it was in the course of ultimate extinction. Let me ask why 
they made provision that the source of slavery — the African slave- 
trade — should be cut off at the end of twenty years? Why did 
they make provision that in all the new territory we owned at that 
time slavery should be forever inhibited? Why stop its spread in 
one direction, and cut off its source in another, if they did not look 
to its being placed in the course of ultimate extinction? 

Again : the institution of slavery is only mentioned in the Con- 
stitution of the United States two or three times, and in neither of 
these cases does the word " slavery " or " negro race " occur; but 
covert language is used each time, and for a purpose full of signifi- 
cance. What is the language in regard to the prohibition of the 
African slave-trade? It runs in about this way: "The migration 
or importation of such persons as an}' of the States now existing 
shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress 
prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight. " 

The next allifsion in the Constitution to the question of slavery 
and the black race is on the subject of the basis of representation, 
and there the language used is: — 

"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned amcThfr tlie 
several States whicli ma}' be inchuled within tliis Union, accordinjr to 
their respective numbers, wliich shall be determined by adding to the 
whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term 
of years, and excluding Indians not taxed,— three-fiftiis of all other per- 
sons." 

It says "persons," not slaves, not negroes; but this "three- 
fifths" can be applied to no other class among us than the negroes. 



438 ALTON nKBATK. OCTOBER i:.. 1858. 

Lastly, in tlu- jirovision fur llu- ivc-lamation of fufjitivo slaves, it 
is said: '* N<» ptTson lu-iil to sfivii-i- or labor in one J^tate, under tiie 
laws thereof, escapinj^ into anotlu-r. sliall in eonseijuence of any law 
or ri'<;nlation tlu-rein Ik' iliscliariifd from sncli ser\ ii-e or laI)or, l)Ut 
yliall l»e delivered up, on elaiin of the parly to whom such service or 
labor may he due. " There ajifain, there is no mention of the word 
"ne>n*o'" or of slavery. In all three of these places, being the only 
allusions to slaver^' in the instrument, covert lan;^uage is useil. 
Lan«.'ua«ie is used not suggesting that slavery existed or that the 
lilack race were among us. And I understand the contemporaneous 
history of those times to Ix' that covert language was u.sed with a 
purpose, and that purpose was that in our Constitution, which it 
was hoped and is still hoped will endure forever, — when it should 
be read by intelligent and i)alri()tic men, after the institution of 
slavery had pas.sed from among us, — there .should he nothing on 
the face of the great charter of lilterty suggesting that such a thiuii 
as negro slavery had ever existed among us. This is part of the 
evidence that the fathers of the (Government expected and intended 
the institution of slavery to come to an end. They expected and 
intended that it should be in the course of ultimate extinction. 
And when I say that I desire to see the further spread of it arrested, 
I only say I desire to see that done which the fathers have first 
done. When I say I desire to see it placed where the pul)lic mind 
will rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, 
I only say I desire to see it placed where they placed it. 

It is not true that our fathers, as Judge Douglas assumes, made 
this Government part Slave and part Free. Tuderstand the sense in 
which he puts ii. lie assumes that slavery is a rightful thing within 
itself, — was introdui-cd by the framers of the Constitution. The 
exact truth is, that they foinid the institution existing among us, 
and they left it as they found it. But in making the Crovernment 
they left this institution with many clear marks of disapprobation 
upon it. The>- found slavery among them, ami they left it among 
them ln'cause of the dilliculty the alisolute impossil)i!ity of its 
immediate removal. And when .Judge Douglas asks me why we 
cannot let it remain part Slave aiul part Vwv, as the fathers of tlie 
(liivernnu-nt made it, he asks a (piestion b.i.sed upon an assumption 
which is itself a falsehood ; ami 1 turn upon him and ask him the 
question, when the policy that the fathers of the (Jovernment h.id 
adopted in relation to this eh'Uient among us was the best policy in 
the world, the only wise policy, the only polii-y that we can ever 



Lincoln. 430 

Safely continue upon, that will ever give us peace, unless this 
dangerous element masters us all and becomes a national institu- 
tion, — I turn npo a Mm and ask him why he could not Icai-c it nlonc. 
I turn and ask him why he was driven to the necessity of introduc- 
ing a ncic poUvij in regard to it. 

He has himself said he introduced a new policy. He said so in 
his speech on the 22nd of March of the present year, 1858. [ ask 
him why he could not let it remain where our fathers placed it. I 
ask, too, of Judge Douglas and his friends why we shall not again 
place this institution upon the basis on which the fathers left it. I 
ask you, when he infers that I am in favor of setting the Free and 
Slave States at war, when the institution was placed in that attitude 
by those who made the Constitution, did they make any tear? If we 
had no war out of it when thus placed, wherein is the ground of 
belief that we shall have war out of it if we return to that policy? 
Have we had any peace upon this matter springing from any other 
basis? I maintain that we have not. I have proposed nothing 
more than a return to the policy of the fathers. 

I confess, when I propose a certain measure of polic}', it is not 
enough for me that I do not intend anything evil in the result; but 
it is incumbent on me to show that it has not a tendency to that 
result. I have met Judge Douglas in that point of view. I have 
not only made the declaration that I do not incan to produce a con- 
flict between the States; but I have tried to show by fair reasoning, 
and I think I have shown to the minds of fair men, that I propose 
nothing but what has a most peaceful tendency. The quotation 
that I happened to make in that Springfield speech, that " a house 
divided against itself cannot stand," and which has proved so otfen- 
sive to the Judge, was part and parcel of the same thing. He tries 
to show that variety in the domestic institutions of the different 
States is necessary and indispensable. I do not dispute it. I have 
no controversy with Judge Douglas about that. 

I shall very readily agree with him that it would be foolish for 
us to insist upon having a cranberry law here in Illinois, where we 
have no cranberries, because they have a cranberry law in Indiana, 
where they have cranberries. I should insist that it would be ex- 
ceedingly wrong in us to deny to Virginia the right to enact oyster 
laws, where they have oysters, because we want no such laws here. 
I understand, I hope, quite as well as Judge Douglas or anybody 
else, that the variety in the soil and climate and face of the coun- 
try, and consequent variety in the industrial pursuits and produc- 



440 ALTON DEBATP:, OCTOBER 15, 1858. 

tious of ji I'ounlrv, ivijuiro systems of law foiifonuinfT to this variety 
iu the natural features of the eouiitry. I umlerstaiKl quite as well 
as Judjjce l)ou<;las that if we liere raise a barrel of flour more than 
we want, and the Louisianians raise a barrel of sujjar more than 
they want, it is of mutual advantage to exchange. That produces 
commerce, brings us together, and makes us i)etter friends. We 
like one another tiie m<jre for it. And I understand as well as 
Judge Douglas, or anybodj' else, that these mutual accommodations 
are the cements which bind together the ditferent parts of this 
I'nion; that instead of being a thing to ''divide the house," — fig- 
uratively expressing the Union, — they tend to sustain it; they are 
the props (»f the house, tending always to hold it up. 

TIIK ONK DISTURUINO KLE.MENT. 

liul when 1 have ailmitted all this, I ask if there is any parallel 
between these things and this institution of slavery? I do not see 
that there is any parallel at all between them. Consider it. When 
have we had any dillicult}' or quarrel amongst ourselves about the 
cranberry laws of Indiana, or the oyster laws of Virginia, or the 
pine-lumber laws of !Maine, or the fact that Louisiana produces 
sugar, and Illinois flour? When have we had any quarrels over 
these things? When have we had perfect peace in regard to this 
thing which I say is an element of discord in this Union. We have 
sometimes had peace; l)ut when was it? It was when the institution 
of slaverj' remained quiet where it was. We have had dilliculty 
and turmoil whenever it has made a struggle to spread itself where 
it was not. I ask, then, if experience does not speak in thuniler- 
tones, telling us that the policy which has given peace to tiie coun- 
try heretofore. l)eing returned to, gives the greatest promise of peace 
again. 

You may say, an<l Judgt; Douglas has intimated the same thing, 
that all this dilliculty in regard to the institution of slavery is the 
mere agitation of ollice-seekers and ambitious Northern politicians. 
He thinks we want to get "his place," I suppose. I agree that 
there are olllce-seekers amongst us. The Hil)le says somewhere that 
we are desperately selllsh. 1 think we would have discovered that 
fact without the Bible. I do not claim that I am anj' less so than 
the average of men; but I do claim that I am not more selfish than 
Judge Douglas. lint is it true that all the dilliculty and agitation 
we have in regard to this institution of slavery springs from ollice- 
seekiug, from the mere aml)itioM of politicians? Is that the truth? 



LINCOLN. 



441 



"How many times have we had dangei- from this question? Go back 
to the day of the Missoiu'i Compromise. Go back to the Nullillca- 
tion question, at the bottom of wliich lay tliis same shivery (luestion. 
Go back to the time of the Annexation of Texas. Go back to the 
troubles that led to the Compromise of 1850. You will find that 
every time, with the single exception of the Nullification question, 
they sprung from an endeavor to spread this institution. 

There never was a party in the history of this country, and there 
probably never \yill be, of sufficient strength to disturb the general 
peace of the country. Parties themselves may be divided and quar- 
rel on minor questions, yet it extends not beyond the parties them- 
selves. But does not this question make a disturbance outside of 
political circles? Does it not enter into the churches and rend them 
asunder? What divided the great Methodist Church into two parts, 
North and South? What has raised this constant disturbance in 
every Presbyterian General Assembly that meets? What disturbed 
the Unitarian Church in this very city two years ago? What has 
jarred and shaken the great American Tract Society recently, not 
yet splitting it, but sure to divide it in the end? Is it not this same 
mighty, deep-seated power that somehow operates on the minds of 
men, exciting and stirring them up in every avenue of society, — -in 
politics, in religion, in literature, in morals, in nil the manifold rela- 
tions of life? 

Is this the work of politicians? Is that irresistible power, which 
for fifty years has shaken the Government and agitated the people, 
to be stilled and subdued by pretending that it is an exceedingly 
simple thing, and we ought not to talk about it? If 3'ou will get 
everybody else to stop talking about it, I assure you I will quit 
before they have half done so. But where is the philosoph}^ or 
statesmanship which assumes that you can quiet that disturbing ele- 
ment in our society which has distui'bed us for more than half a 
century, which has been the only serious danger that has threatened 
our institutions, — I say, where is the philosophy or the statesman- 
ship based on the assumption that we are to quit talking about it, 
and that the public mind is all at once to cease being agitated by it? 
Yet this is the policy here in the North that Douglas is advocating, 
— that we are to care nothing about it! I ask you if it is not a 
false philosophy. Is it not a false statesmanship that undertakes 
to build up a system of policy upon the basis of caring nothing 
about the very thing th(tt everyJiodjj Joes care the most about? — a thing 
which all experience has shown we care a very great deal about ? 



Uli ALTON iJEBATi:. OCTOBER 15. 1858. 

Tlie .Iiulfze alliidt's very often in the course of his remarks to the 
exclusive rijjjht which tiie States have to ileciile the whoh' tiling for 
themselves. I agree with hliu vt-rv readily tiiat the ditrereiit States 
have that ritiht. He is but fighting a man of straw when he as- 
sumes that I am contending against the right of the States to do as 
they please about it. Our controversy with him is in regard to 
the new Territories. We agree that when tiie Stales coine in as 
States they have the right and the power to do as they please. We 
have uo power as citizens of the Free States, or in our Federal ca- 
pacity as members of the Federal Union through the General Gov- 
ennnent, to disturb slavery in the States where it exists. We pro- 
fess constantly that we have no more inclination than belief in the 
power of the ( iovernnicnt to disturb it ; yet we are driven constantly 
to defend ourselves from the assumption that we are warring upon 
the rights of the Stutrs. What I insist upon is, that the new Terri- 
tories shall be kept free from it while in the Territorial condition. 
Judge Douglas assumes that we have no interest in them, — that we 
have no right whatever to interfere. I think we have some interest. 
I think that as white men we have. 

Do we not wish for an outlet for our surplus population, if I may 
so express myself ? Do wo not feel an interest in getting to that 
outlet with such in.stitutions as we would like to have prevail there? 
If 1/nii go to the Territory opposed to slavery, and another man 
comes upon the same ground with his slave, upon the assumption 
that the things are equal, it turns out that he has the ecjual right 
all his way, and you have no part of it your way. If he goes in 
and makes it a Slave Territory, and by consequence a Slave State, 
is it not time that tho.se who desire to have it a Free State were on 
ecjual ground ? Let me suggest it in a dilferent way. How many 
Democrats are there about here [Voice: " A liiousand ""] who have 
left Slave States and come into the Free State of Illinois to get rid 
of the institution of slavery? [Another voice: " A thousand and 
one. "3 I reckon there are a thousand and one. I will ask you, if 
the policy you are now advocating had prevailed when this country 
was in a Territorial condition, where would you have gone to get rid 
of it ? Wiicn- would you have found your Free State or Territory 
to go to ? And when hereafter, for any cause, the people in this 
place sh.-ill desire to liud new homes, if the}' wish to be rid of the 
institution, where will they find the place to go to ? 

Now, irrespective of the moral aspect of this (pH'stion as to 
whether there is a right or wrong in enslaving a negro, I am still in 



LINCOLN. 443 

favor of our new Territories being in such a condition that white 
ineii may find a home, — may find some spot where they can better 
their condition; where they can settle upon new soil and l)etter their 
condition in life. 1 am in favor of this, not merely (I must say it 
here as T have elsewhere) for our own people who are born amons^st 
us, but as an outlet for free white people everyicherc, the world over, 
— in which Hans, and Baptiste, and Patrick, and all other men 
from all the world, may find new homes and better their condition 
in life. 

THE REAL ISSUE. 

I have stated upon former occasions, and I may as well state 
again, what T undeistand to be the real issue in this controversy 
between Judge Douglas and myself. On the point of my wanting 
to make war between the Free and the Slave States, there has been 
no issue between us. So, too, when he assumes that I am in favor 
of introducing a perfect social and political equality between the 
white and black races. These are false issues, upim which Judge 
Douglas has tried to force the controversy'. There is no foundation 
in truth for the charge that I maintain either of these propositions. 
The real issue in this controversy — the one pressing upon every 
mind — is the sentiment on the part of one class that looks upon the 
institution of slavery as a wrong, and of another class that does 
not look upon it as a wrong. 

The sentiment that contemplates the institution of slavery in tliis 
country as a wrong is the sentiment of the Republican party. It is 
the sentiment around which all their actions, all their arguments, cir- 
cle, from which all their propositions radiate. They look upon it as 
being a moral, social, and political wrong; and while they contem- 
plate it as such, they nevertheless have due regard for its actual 
existence among us, and the difficulties of getting rid of it in any 
satisfactory way, and to all the constitutional obligations thrown 
about it. Yet, having a due regard for these, they desire a policy 
in regard to it that looks to its not creating any more danger. 
They insist that it should, as far as may be, he treated as a wrong ; 
and one of the methods of treating it as a wrong is to make provision 
th<(t it shall grow no largrr. They also desire a policy that looks to 
a peaceful end of slavery at some time, as being wrong. 

These are the views they entertain in regard to it as I understand 
them; and all their sentiments, all their arguments and proposi- 
tions, are brought within this range. I have said, and I repeat it 



444 ALTON DEBATE. OCTOBER 15. 1858. 

luTi', that if lluMV In* :i iu:in siinonj^st us who does not think that 
the institution of shivery is wrong in imy one of tlie aspects of 
whieli I have 8iK>ken, be is misphiced, and ought not to be with us. 
An«l if there be u man amonjrst us wlio is so impatient of it as a 
wn)n«; as to disregard its actual presence among us and the dilll- 
culty of getting rid of it suddenly in a satisfactory way, and to 
disregard the constitutional obligations thrown about it, that man 
is misplaced if he is on our lilatform. We disclaim sympathy 
with him in practical action. He is not placed properly with us. 

On this subject of treating it as a wrong, and limiting its spread, 
let me say a word. lias anything ever threatened the existence of 
this rnion save and except this very institution of slavery? "\\:Jiat 
is it that we hold most di-ar amongst us? Our own liberty and pros- 
IK'rity. What has ever threatened our liberty and pros|)erity. save 
and except this institution of slavery? If this is true, how do y»»u 
pn^pose to improve the condition of things by enlarging slavery, — 
by spreading it out and making it bigger? You may have a wen or 
cancer upon your person, and not be able to cut it out, lest you 
bleed to death; but surel}' it is no way to cure it, to engraft it and 
spread it over your whole body. That is no proper way of treating 
what you regard a wrong. You see this peaceful way of dealing 
with it as a wrong, — restricting the spread of it, and not allowing 
it to go into new countries where it has not already existed. That 
is the peaceful way, the old-fashioned way, the way in which the 
fathers themselves set us the example. 

On the other hand, I have said there is a sentiment wliich treats 
it as udf bi'ing wrong. That is the Democratic sentiment of this 
day. I do not mean to say that every man who stiinds within that 
range positively asserts that it is right. That class will include all 
who positively assert that it is right, and all who, like .Judge Doug- 
las, treat it as indilFerent and do not say it is either right or wrong. 
These two das.ses of men fall within the general class of tho.se who 
do not look upon it as a wrong. And if tln-re be among you any- 
ImkIv who suppos»'s that he, as a Democrat, can consider himself 
" as mu«-ii opposcil to slavery as anybody, " I would like to reaj^on 
with liiin. Vou never treat it as a wrong. W'liat other tiling that 
you consider as a wrong do you tleal with as 30U deal with that ? 
I'erhaps you tmi/ it is a wrong, Imt your hathr in v< r (fii> s, niiil ymi 
tjiiiirrrl with iiiii/hoili/ vhn snt/s it is irmng. Although you pretend to 
say HO yourself, you can find no fit j)lacc to deal with it as a wrong. 
You must not s.iy anything aljout it in tlie Free Slates, htniiisc it is 



LINCOLN. 445 

not here. You must not say anything iibout it in the Slave States, 
Iwcaiim it is t/irrr. You must not say anything about it in the pul- 
pit, because that is religion, and has nothing to do with it. You 
must not say anything about it in politics, because that will tlistnrh 
the scciiritij (if '' mij phicr." There is no place to talk about it as 
being a wrong, although you say yourself it is a wrong. 

But, finally, j'ou will screw 3'our.self up to the belief that if the 
people of the Slave States should adopt a system of gradual eman- 
cipation on the slavery question, you would be in favor of it. 
You would be in favor of it. You say that is getting it in the right 
place, and you would be glad to see it succeed. But you are 
deceiving yourself. You all know that Frank Blair and Gratz 
Brown, down there in St. Louis, undertook to introduce that system 
in Missouri. They fought as valiantly as the}- could for the sy.stem 
of gradual emancipation which you pretend you would be glad to 
see succeed. Now, I will bring you to the test. After a hard fight 
they were beaten, and when the news came over here, you threw 
up your hats and hitrrahcd fur Democracy. More than that, take 
all the argument made in favor of the system you have proposed, 
and it carefully excludes the idea that there is anything wrong in 
the institution of slavery. The arguments to sustain that policy 
carefully exclude it. Even here to-day you heard Judge Douglas 
quarrel with me because I uttered a wish that it might sometime 
come to an end. Although Henry Clay could say he wished every 
slave in the United States was in the country of his ancestors, I 
am denounced by those pretending to respect Henry Clay for utter- 
ing a wish that it might sometime, in some peaceful wa}', come to 
an end. The Democratic policy in regard to that institution will not 
tolerate the merest breath, the slightest hint, of the least degree of 
wrong about it. 

Tr}' it by some of Judge Douglas's arguments. He says he 
" do n't care whether it is voted up or voted down " in the Territories. 
I do not care myself, in dealing with that expression, whotiier it is 
intended to be expressive of his individual sentiments on the sub- 
ject, or onl}' of the national policy he desires to have established. 
It is alike valuable for my purpose. Any man can say that, who 
does not see anything wrong in slaver}'; but no man can logically 
say it who does see a wrong in it, because no man can logically say 
he don't care whether a wrong is voted up or voted down. He 
may say he don't care whether an indifferent thing is voted up or 
down ; but he must logically have a choice between a right thing 



ni; Ai/roN dkbatk. October 15, i858. 

and :i wrong thing. He contends that whatever community wants 
slavt's has a right to have them. So they have, if it is not a wrong. 
Hilt if it i.s a wrung, he cannot say people have a right to do wrong. 
lie says that upon tiie score of equality, slaves should be allowed 
to go into a new Territory, like other property. This is strictl}' log- 
ical if there is no difference between it and other property. If it 
and other property are eipial, his argument is entirely logical. Hut 
if you insist that one is wrong antl the other right, there is no use 
to institute a comparison between right and wrong. You may turn 
<tvcr everything in the Pi'niocratic policy from Iteginning to end, 
whether in the shape it taki's on the statute book, in the shape it 
takes in the Dred Scott decisit^n, in the shape it takes in conversa- 
tion, or the shajjc it lakes in short maxim-like arguments, — it 
everywhere carefully excludes the idea that there is anything wrong 
in it. 

That is the real issue. That is the issue that will continue in 
this country- when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself 
shall be silent. It is the eternal struggle between these two prin- 
ciples — right and wrong — thnjughout the world. They are the 
two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of 
time, and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common 
right of humanity, and the other the " divine right of kings." It is 
the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself. It is the 
same spirit that says, "You work and toil and earn bread, and I'll 
eat it.' No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth 
of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and 
live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an 
apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical prin- 
ciple. 

I was glad to express my gratitude at Quincy, and I re-express 
it here to Judge Douglas, — tjKit lir Imtks to no nnl of fhr lust it itt Ion 
of nhivnij. That will help the people to see where the struggle 
really is. It will hereafter place with us all men who really do wisii 
the wrong may have an end. And whenever we can get rid of the 
fog which obscures the n-al (juestion, when we can get Judge 
Douglas and his friends to avow a policy looking to its perpetua- 
tion, — we can get them out from among that cla.ssof men and bring 
them to the side of those who treat it as a wrong. Then there will 
soon be an end of it, and that end will be its " ultimate extinction. ' 
Whenever the issue can be distinctly made, and all extraneous mat- 
ter thrown out so that men can fairlv sei' the real diirerenc*' itetween 



LINCOLN. 447 

the parties, this controversy will soon be settled, and it will I,(. 
done peaceably too. There will be no war, no violence. It will be 
placed again wiiere the wisest and best men of the world placed it. 
Brooks of South Carolina once declared that when this Constitution 
was framed, its framers did not look to the institution existing un- 
til this day. When he said this, I think he stated a fact that is 
fully borne out by the history of the times. But he also said tin y 
were better and wiser men than the men of these days; yet the men 
of these days had experience which they had not, and by the inven- 
tion of the cotton-gin it became a necessity in this country that 
slavery should be perpetual. I now say that, willingly or unwili- 
iiiglj) purposely or without purpose, Judge Douglas has been the 
most prominent instrument in changing the position of the institution 
of slavery which the fathers of tlie Government expected to come to 
an end ere this, — aiul puttlncj it kjxih Jironks's cotfoii-r/in Ixisi.s ; pla- 
cing it where he openly confesses he has no desire there shall ever 
be an end of it. 

CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION. 

I understand I have ten minutes yet. I will employ it in say- 
ing something about this argument Judge Douglas uses, while he 
sustains the Dred Scott decision, that the people of the Territories 
can still somehow exclude slavery. The first thing I ask attention 
to is the fact that Judge Douglas constantly said, before the decis- 
ion, that whether they could or not, was a question for the iSnpreme 
Court. But after the court has made the decision he virtually says 
it is )iot a question for the Supreme Court, but for the people. And 
how is it he tells us they can exclude it? He says it needs " police 
regulations," and that admits of "unfriendly legislation.' Al- 
though it is a right established by the Constitution of the United 
States to take a slave into a Territory of the United States and hold 
him as property, yet unless the Territorial Legislature will give 
friendly legislation, and, more especially, if they adopt unfriendly 
legislation, they can practically exclude him. 

Now, without meeting this proposition as a matter of fact, I 
pass to consider the real constitutional obligation. Let me take 
the gentleman who looks me in the face before me, and let us sup- 
pose that he is a meml)er of the Territorial Legislature. The first 
thing he will do will be to swear that he will support the Constitu- 
tion of the United States. His neighbor by his side in the Terri- 
tory has slaves and needs Territorial legislation to enable him to 



448 ALTON nKP.ATr:. OCTc^RER If), 1858. 

t'lijoy tliat fonstitiitioiKil rijjht. CuJi lii' withhold the le>;islation 
which his m'i^iil)(»r net'ds for the I'lijoyuiiMit of a right wliith i.s fixed 
in his favor in the Constitution <>f thi- rnitod States which Ir* has 
sworn tt» support? Can hi- withhol<l it without viohitinj; liis oath? 
And, more especially, can he pass unfriemlly legislation to violate 
bis oath? 

Why, this is a nwustrous sort of talk about the Constitution of 
the United States! T/i> n /uis iirvcr hien as oiitl<tn(lish nr hiirhss n doc- 
trine from the mouth of nnij resprctohh mmi on earth. I do not believe 
it is a constitutional right to hold slaves in a Territory of the United 
States. I believe the decision was improperly' made and I go for 
reversing it. .Judge Douglas is furious against those who go for 
reversing a tleeisiou. IJut he is for legislating it out of all force wliile 
the law itself stands. I repeat that there has never been so mon- 
strous a doc-trine uttered fiom the mouth of a respectable man. 

I suppose most of us (I know it of myself) Ijelieve that the peo- 
ple of the Southern States are entitled to a Congressional Fugitive- 
Slave law, — that is a right fixed in the Constitution. But it can- 
not be made available to them without Congressional legislation. 
In the Judge's language, it is a " barren right." which needs legis- 
lation before it can become efficient and valuable to the persons to 
whom it is guaranteed. And as the right is constitutional, I agree 
that the legislation shall l»e granted to it, — and that, not that we 
like the institution of slavery. We profess to have no taste for 
running and catching niggers, — at least, I profess no taste for that 
job at all. Why then do I yield support to a Fugitive-Slave law? 
Because I do not understand that the Constitution, which guaran- 
t<'es that right, can be supported without it. And if I believed 
that the right to hold a slave in a Territory was eciuallv fixed in the 
Constitution with the right to' reclaim fugitives, I should be bound 
to give it the legislation necessary to support it. I say that no 
man can den}* his obligation to give the necessary legislation to sup- 
port slavery in a Territor}', who believes it is a constitutional right 
to have it there. No man can, who does not give the AI)()litionists 
an argument U) deny the obligation enjoineil by the Constitution to 
enact a Fugitive-Slave law. Try it now. It is the strongest Abolition 
argunit'iit ever made. I say if that Dred Scott decision is correct, 
then the right to hold slaves in a Territory is equally a constitu- 
tional right with the right of a slaveholder to have his runaway 
retur.ied. No one can show the distinction between them. The 
one ii express, so that wc caiuiot deny it. The other is construed 



LINCOLN. 449 

to be in the Constitution, so that he who believes the decision to be 
correct believes in the right. And the man wlio argues tluit by uu- 
friendly legishition, in spite of that constitutional right, slavery 
may be driven from the Territories, cannot avoid furnishing an ar- 
gument by which Abolitionists may deny the obligation to return 
fugitives, and claim the power to pass laws unfriendly to the right 
of the slaveholder to reclaim his fugitive. 

I do not know how such an argument may strike a popular as- 
sembly like this, but I defy anybody to go before a body of men 
whose minds are educated to estimating evidence and reasoning, 
and show that there is an iota of difference between the constitu- 
tional right to reclaim a fugitive, and the constitutional right to 
hold a slave, in a Territory, provided this Dred Scott decision is 
correct. I defy any man to make an argument that will justify un- 
friendly legislation to deprive a slaveholder of his right to hold his 
slave in a Territory, that will not equally, in all its length, breadth, 
and thickness, furnish an argument for nullifying the Fugitive- 
Slave law. Why, there is not such an Abolitionist in the nation as 
Douglas, after all. 



MR. DOUGLAS'S REJOINDER. 

Mr. Lincoln has concluded his remarks by saying there is not 
such an Abolitionist as I am in all America. If he could make the 
Abolitionists of Illinois believe that, he would not have much show 
for the Senate. Let him make the Abolitionists believe the truth 
of that statement, and his political back is broken. 

His first criticism upon me is the expression of his hope that the 
war of the Administration will be prosecuted against me and the 
Democratic party of this State with vigor. He wants that war 
prosecuted with vigor ; I have no doubt of it. His hopes of suc- 
cess and the hopes of his party depend solely upon it. The}' have 
no chance of destroying the Democracy of this State except by the 
aid of Federal patronage. He has all the Federal otilce-holders 
here as his allies, running separate tickets against the Democracy to 
divide the party, although the leaders all intend to vote directly the 
Abolition ticket, and only leave the greenhorns to vote this separate 
ticket who refuse to go into the Abolition camp. There is some- 
thing really refreshing in the thought that Mr. Lincoln is in favor 
of prosecuting one war vigorously. It is the first war I ever knew 
39 



150 ALTON DEBATE. OCTOBER 15. la'SS. 

him to be iu favor of pro8eciitin<j. It is the first war that I ever 
knew him to iK'Iieve to be just or constitutional. When the Mexi- 
can war was Iteiiijjj wa<jeil, and the Anicrii-au army was surrounded 
by tiie enemy in Mexico, he tlioiij^ht that war was unconstitutional, 
unnecessary, and unjust. He thought it was not commenced on tlie 
right Ay»<»/. 

When I maik' an inciiU'ntal ulhision of that kind in the joint 
discussion over at Charleston some weeks ago, Liiirohi, in rei)Iying, 
said that I, Doughis, had charged him with voting against supplies 
for tlie Mexican War, and then he reared up, full length, and swore 
that he never voted against the supplies ; that it was a slander ; 
and caught hold of Ficklin, who sat on the stand, and said, " Here, 
Ficklin, tell the people that it is a lie. " Well, Ficklin, who had served 
in Congress with him, stood up and told thera all that he recollected 
about it. It was that when George Ashmun, of Massachusetts, 
brought forward a resolution declaring the war unconstitutional, un- 
necessary, and unjust, that Lincoln had voted for it. " Yes," said 
Lincoln, "Idid. ' Thus he confessed that he voted that the war 
was wrong, that our country was in the wrong, and consequently 
that the Mexicans were in the right, but charged that I had sland- 
ered him by saying that he voted against the supplies. I never 
charged him with voting against the supplies in my life, because I 
knew that he was not in Congress when they were voted. The war 
was commenced on the 13th day of May, ISll), and on that day we 
appropriated in Congress ten millions of dollars and fifty thousaml 
men to pro.secute it. During the same session we voted more men 
and more money, and at the next session we voted more men and 
more mone}', so that by the time Mr. Lincoln entered Congress we 
hail enough men and enough money to carry on the war, and had no 
occasion to vote for any more. When he got into the House, be- 
ing oppo.sed to the war, and ii(»t being able to stop the supplies, be- 
cause they had all gone forward, all he could do was to follow the 
lead of Corwin, and prove that the war was not begun on the right 
spot, and that it was unconstitutional, uiinecessary, and wrong. 
Remember, too, that this he did after the war had been begun. 

It is one thing to be opposed t<j the declaration of a war, another 
and very diirerenl thing to take sides with the enemy against your 
own country after the war has been commenced. Our army was in 
Mexico ut the time, many I)attle8 had been fought; our citi/AMis, 
who were defending the honor of their country's Hag, were sur- 
Kjundeil liv the daggers, the guus, uud the poisou of the eiieiiiv 



DOUGLAS. 451 

Then it was that Corwin made his speech in which he dechired tlmt 
the American soldiers ought to be welcomed by the Mexicans witli 
bloody hands and hospilaljle graves; then it was that Ashraun and 
Lincoln voted in the House of Representatives that the war was un- 
constitutional and unjust; and Ashmun's resolution, Corwin's speech, 
and Lincolns vote were sent to Mexico and read at the head of the 
Mexican army, to prove to them that there was a Mexican party in 
the Congress of the United States who were doing all in their power 
to aid them. That a man who takes sides with the common enemy 
against his own country in time of war should rejoice in a war be- 
ing made on me now, is very natural. And, in my opinion, no 
other kind of a man would rejoice in it. 

Mr. Lincoln has told j^ou a great deal to-day about his being an 
old line Clay Whig. Bear in mind that there are a great many old 
Clay Whigs down in this region. It is more agreeable, therefore, for 
him to talk about the old Clay Whig party than it is for him to talk 
about iVbolitionism. We did not hear much about the old Clay 
AVhig party up in the Abolition districts. How much of an old 
line Henry Clay Whig was he? Have you read General Singleton's 
speech at Jacksonville? You know that General Singleton was for 
twenty-five years the confidential friend of Henry Chiy in Illinois, 
and he testified that in 1847, when the Constitutional Convention 
of this State was in session, the Whig members were invited to a 
Whig caucus at the house of Mr. Lincoln's brother-in-law, where 
Mr Lincoln proposed to throw Henry Clay overboard and take up 
General Taylor in his place, giving as his reason that if the Whigs 
did not take up General Taylor, the Democrats would. Singleton 
testifies that Lincoln in that speech urged as another reason for 
throwing Henry Clay overboard, that the Whigs had fought long 
enough for principle, and ought to begin to fight for success. Sin- 
gleton also testifies that Lincoln's speech did have the effect of 
cutting Clays throat, and that he (Singleton) and others withdrew 
from the caucus in indignation. He further states that wheii they 
got to Philadelphia to attend the National Convention of the Whig 
party, that Lincoln was there, the bitter and deadly enemy of Clay, 
and that he tried to keep him (Singleton) out of the Convention 
because he insisted on voting for Clay, and Lincoln was determined 
to have Taylor. Singleton saj'S that Lincoln rejoiced with very 
great joy when he found the mangled remains of the murdered 
Whig statesman lying cold before him. Now, Mr. Lincoln tells 
yon that he is an old line Clay Whig! General Singleton testifies 



.i:,L' Ai.'niN nKi5ATK. (>('T()Iu:k i:>. ia58. 

to Uk* facts I havo narrated, in a pultlic Hpceoh which has been 
printed and eireulateil liroadcast over the State for weeks, yet not 
a lisj) have we heard from Mr. Lincoln on the subject, except that 
he is an oM Ch»y Wlii*;. 

What part of Henry Chiys polii-y did liincohi ever advocate? 
He was in Congress in 1848-9, wiien the W'ilmot Proviso warfare 
disturbed tlie pence and liarniony of the country, until it sliook the 
foundation of the Repulilic from its center to its circumference. 
It was that agitation th:il brought Clay forth from lii.s retirement 
at Ashland again to occupy his seat in the Senate of the United 
States, to see if he could not, by his great wisdom and experience, 
and the renown of his name, do something to restore peace and 
(juiet to a disturbed country. Who got up that sectional strife that 
Clay had to be called ujion to ([uell? I have heard Lincoln boast 
that he voted forty-two limes for the Wilmot Proviso, and that he 
would have voted as many times more if he could. Lincoln is the 
man, in connection with Seward, Chase, Giddings, and other Abo- 
litionists, who got up that strife that I helped Clay to put down. 
Henry Clay came back to the Senate in 1849, and saw that he must 
do something to restore peace to the countr}'. The Union Whigs 
and the Union Democrats welcomed him, the moment he arrived, 
as the man for the occasion. We believed that he, of all men on 
earth, had been preserved by Divine I'rovidence to guide us out of 
our dilliculties, and we Democrats rallied under Clay then, as you 
Whigs in NulliGcation time rallied under the bainier of old Jack.son, 
forgetting jiart}' when the country was in danger, in order that we 
might have a country lirst, and parties afterward. 

And this reminds me that Mr. Lincoln told you tliat the slavery 
(|m'stion was the only thing that ever disturlied the peace and har- 
mony of the Union. Did not Nullilication once raise its head and 
disturb the peace of this Union in 1832? Was tliat the shiviiy 
<|Uestion, Mr. Lincoln? Did not disunion rai.se its monster head 
during the last war with (Ireat Britain? Was that the slavery 
• piestion, Mr. Lincoln? The jieace of this country has been dis- 
turbed thre(; times, once during the war with Great Britain, once 
on the tariir (juestion, and once on the slavery (piestion. His 
argument, therefore, that slavery is the oidy (juestion that has ever 
created «lis.sension in the Union falls to the ground. It is true that 
agitators are enabled now to use this slavery question for the pur- 
pose of seclional strife. He ailmits that in regard to all things 
<'lhe, the principle that I advocate, making each Slate and Territory 



DOUGLAS. 453 

free to decide for itself, ought to prevail. He instances the cran- 
berry laws and the oyster laws, and he might have gone through the 
whole list with the same effect. I say that all these laws are local 
and domestic, and that local and domestic concerns should be left 
to each State and each Territory to manage for itself. If agitators 
would acquiesce in that principle, there never would be any danger 
to the peace and harmony of the Union. 

"THE GREAT PRINCIPLE OF SELF-GOVERNMENT." 

Mr. Lincoln tries to avoid the main issue by attacking the truth 
of my proposition, that our fathers made this government divided 
into Free and Slave States, recognizing the right of each to decide 
all its local questions for itself. Did they not thus make it? It 
is true that they did not establish slavery in any of the States, or 
abolish it in any of them; but finding thirteen States, twelve of 
which were Slave and one Free, they agreed to form a government 
uniting them together as they stood, divided into Free and Slave 
States, and to guarantee forever to each State the right to do as it 
pleased on the slavery question. Having thus made the govern- 
ment and conferred this right upon each State forever, I assert that 
this Government can exist as they made it, divided into Free and 
Slave States, if any one State chooses to retain slavery. He says 
that he looks forward to a time when slavery shall be abolished 
ever3'whcre. I look forward to a time when each State shall be 
allowed to do as it pleases. If it chooses to keep slaverj' forever, 
it is not my business, but its own; if it chooses to abolish slavery, 
it is its own business, — not mine. I care more for the great prin- 
ciple of self-government, the right of the people to rule, than I do 
for all the negroes in Christendom. I would not endanger the per- 
petuity of this Union, I would not blot out the great inalienable 
rights of the white men, for all the negroes that ever existed. 

Hence, I say, let us maintain this Government on the principles 
that our fathers made it, recognizing the right of each State to 
keep slavery as long as its people determine, or to abolish it when 
they please. But Mr. Lincoln says that when our fathers made 
this Government they did not look forward to the state of things 
now existing, and therefore he thinks the doctrine was wrong; and 
he quotes Brooks of South Carolina to prove that our fathers then 
thought that probably slavery would be abolished by each State 
acting for itself before this time. Suppose they did; suppose they 
did not foresee what has occurred, — does that change the principles 



■IjJ ALTON DEBATE, OCTUIJEU i:.. 1S58. 

nf oiif (ioviTniiK'nt? T\n'\ did not [iroltalily fort'sec llie telegr:i|ih 
lliat transmits iiitt'llii;ciice liy li^litnin;i;, nor did they foivsee the 
i-iilroads that now form the honds of union belwi-i n tlio ditri'n-nt 
SUitt's, or the thousand nu'chanii:il inventions that have elevated 
mankind. Hut do these things ehange the i)rinciples of the (lov- 
erjiment? Our fathers, I say, made this (Jovernment on the prinei 
pie of the right of eaeh State to do as it pleases in its own domestic 
alTairs, sul)jeet to the Constitution, and allowed the people of each 
to apply to every new change of circumstances such remedy as they 
may see lit to improve their eondition. Tills right tliey have foi- all 
time to come. 

Mr. Lincoln went on to tell you that he does not at all desire to 
interfere with slavery in the States where it exists, nor does his 
party. I expected him to say that down here. Let me ask him, 
then, how he expects to put slavery in the course of ultimate ex- 
tinetion everywhere, if he does not intend to interfere with it in the 
States where it exists? He says that he will proliiliit it in all 
Territories, and the inference is, then, that unless they make Free 
States out of them he will keep them out of the Union; for, mark 
you, he did not sa}' whether or not lie would vote to admit Kansas 
with shiver}' or not, as her people might apply (he forgot that, as 
usual, etc.); he did not say whether or not he was in favor of bring- 
ing the Territories now in existence into the Union on the principle 
of Clays Compromise Measures on the slaver}' (jui'stion. I told 
you that he would not. His idea is that he will proliiliit slavery in 
all the Territories, and thus force them all to hecoine Free States, 
surrounding the Slave States with a cordon of Kree States, and 
hemming them in, keeping the slaves conlined to their present limits 
whilst they go on multiplying, until the soil on wliii li tiiey live will 
no longer feeil them, and he will thus he aide to put slavery in a 
course of ultimate extinction by starvation. He will extinguish 
slavery in the Soutiiern States as the French general exterminated 
the Algerines when he smoked them out. lie is going to extinguish 
slavery by surrounding the Slave States, hemming in the slaves, 
and starving them (»iit of existenee. as you smoke .i fox out of 
his hole. 

lie iiitfiids to do thai in the name of humanity and Cliristiaiiity, 
in order that we may get rid of the terrible erinii' and sin entailed 
upon our fallu-rs of holding slaves. iMr. Lincoln makes out that 
line of policy, and appeals to the moral sense of justice anil to the 
ChriKtian feeling of the coniiiiMiiity to sustain h'nu. He says that 



DOUGLAS. 455 

any man who holds to the contrary doctrine is in the position of the 
king who chiimed to govern by divine right. Let us examine for a 
moment and see what principle it was that overthrew the divine 
right of George the Third to govern us. Did not these Colonies 
rebel because the British Parliament had no right to pass laws con- 
cerning our properly and domestic and private institutions without 
our consent? We demanded that the British Government should 
not pass such laws unless they gave us representation in the body 
passing them; and this the British Government insisting on doing, 
we went to war, on the principle that the Home Government should 
not control and govern distant colonies without giving them a repre- 
sentation. Now, Mr. Lincoln proposes to goA'ern the Territories 
without giving them a representation, and calls on Congress to jjuss 
laws controlling their property and domestic concerns without their 
consent and against their will. Thus, he asserts for his party the 
identical principle asserted by George III. and the Tories of the 
Revolution. 

I ask you to look into these things, and then tell me whether 
the Democray or the Abolitionists are right. I hold that the people 
of a Territory, like those of a State (I use the language of Mr. 
Buchanan in his Letter of Acceptance), have the right to decide for 
themselves whether slavery shall or shall not exist within their 
limits. The point upon which Chief Justice Taney expresses his 
opinion is simply this, that slaves, being property, stand on an 
etjual footing with other property, and consequently that the owner 
has the same right to carry that property into a Territory that he 
has any other, subject to the same conditions. Suppose that one 
of your merchants was to take fifty or one hundred thousand 
dollars' worth of liquors to Kansas. He has a right to go there, 
under that decision; but when he gets there he finds the Maine 
liquor law in force, and what can he do with his property after he 
gets it there? He cannot sell it, he cannot use it; it is subject to 
the local law, and that law is against him, and the best thing he can 
do with it is to bring it back into Missouri or Hliuois and sell it. If 
you take negroes to Kansas, as Colonel Jefferson Davis said in his 
Bangor speech, from which I have quoted to-day, you must take 
them there subject to the local law. If the people want the institu- 
tion of slavery, they will protect and encourage it; but if they do 
not want it, they will withhold that protection, and the absence of 
local legislation protecting slavery excludes it as completeh* as a 
positive prohibition. You slaveholders of Missouri might as well 



450 Al.lo-N DKllATE, DPTORER in. 1858. 

underslaml what you know pmctically, that you cannot carry slavery 
AvliL-rt' till' ptniple do not want it. All you have a right to ask is 
that the people shall ilo as they please: if they want slavery, let 
them have it; if they do not want it. allow them to refuse to en- 
counige it. 

My friends, if, as I have said before, we will only live up to this 
great fundamental principle, there will he peace betwei-n the North 
and the South. Mr. Lincoln admits that, under the Constitution, 
on all domestic questions, except slavery, we ought not to interfere 
with the people of each State. What right liave we to interfere 
with slavery any more than we have to interfere with any other 
(juestion? He says that this slavery (picstion is now the bone of 
contention. Why? Simply because agitators have combined in all 
the Free States to make war upon it. Suppose the agitators m the 
States should combine in one half of the Union to make war upon 
the railroad system of the other half? They would thus be driven 
to the same sectional strife. Suppose one section makes war upon 
any other peculiar institution of the opposite section, and the same 
strife is produced. The only remedy and safety is that we shiill 
stand by the Constitution as our fathers made it, obey the laws as 
they arc ])assed, v.liiJe they stand the proper test, and sustain the 
decisions of the Supreme Court and the constituted authorities. 



COLUMBUS, OHIO, SEPTEMBER IG, 185!). 457 

SPEECH OF HON. ABRAHAM LINCOLN, 

At Columbus, Ohio, September IG, 1S5D. 

Fellow-Citizens OF tiik State of Oiifo: I cannot fail to re- 
member that 1 appear for the first time Ijefore an audience in this 
now great State, — an audience that is accustomed to hear such 
speakers as Corwin, and Chase, and Wade, and many other re- 
nowned men; and, remembering this, I feel that it will be well for 
you, as for me, that you should not raise your expectations to that 
standard to which you would have been justified in raising them had 
one of these distinguished men appeared before you. You would 
perhaps be only preparing a disappointment for yourselves, and, as 
a consequence of yonv disappointment, mortification to me. I hope, 
therefore, that you will commence with very moderate expectations; 
and perhaps, if yon will give me your attention, I shall be able to 
interest you to a moderate degree. 

Appearing here for the first time in my life, I have been some- 
what embarrassed for a topic by way of introduction to my speech; 
but 1 have been relieved from that embarmssment by an introduc- 
tion which the Ohio Statesman newspaper gave me this morning. In 
this paper I have read an article, in which, among other statements, 
I find the following: — 

" In debating with Senator Douglas during the memorable contest 
of last fall, Mr. Lincoln declared in favor of negro suffrage, and at- 
tempted to defend that vile conception against the Little Giant." 

I mention this now, at the opening of my remarks, for the pur- 
pose of making three comments upon it. The first I have already 
announced, — it furnishes me an introductory topic; the second is to 
show that the gentleman is mistaken; thirdly, to give him an oppor- 
tunity to correct it. 

In the first place, in regard to this matter being a mistake. I 
have found that it is not entirel}' safe, when one is misrepresented 
under his very nose, to allow the misrepresentation to go uncontra- 
dicted. I therefore propose, here at the outset, not only to say that 
this is a misrepresentation, but to show conclusively that it is so; and 
you will bear with me while I read a couple of extracts from that 
very "memorable" debate with Judge Douglas last j'ear, to which 
this newspaper refers. In the first pitched battle which Senator 



45!^ SPEECH OF LINCOLN. 

Douglas and myself luul. at the town of Ottawa. I used the lan- 
jruaije which I will ixtw n-ad. Ilaviiio; l»i-fii pivviously ivadint^ au 
extract, 1 continued as follows: — 

'•Now. jErentlcmt'ii, I d<ni'l want to read at any proator lont'th. but tliis 
is llu- true coinpU'xioii of all I havi' fVtT said in refj^ard to tiie iusliluiioii 
of slavery ami tiu- blark race. This is tiie whole of it; and anything' lliat 
ar^rnes me into his idea of i>i>rft*ct social and politie.il ('(juaiity wiili tin- 
ut'^rro. is but a specious and fantastic arraiifrement of words, by which a 
man can prove a horse-cliestiuil U> be a chestnut horse. I will say here, 
while u|H)n this subject, that 1 have no pur[M)se directly or indirectly to 
interfere with the institution of slavery in the Slates where it exists. I be- 
lieve I have no lawful rifrht to do so. and I have no inclination to do so. 1 
have no puri)ose to introtluce |x)litical and social equality between the 
white and the black races. There is a physical ditference between the 
two which, in my judirmiMit, will probably forever forbid their livinj;: to- 
gether u|)on the fiMitinp of iM-rfect equality ; and inasmuch as it becomes 
a neci'ssity that there must be ji (lifference, 1, as well as .Tiidfre I)ou}?las, am 
in favor of the race to which 1 belouf; having the superior position. 1 have 
never said anythin;: to the contrary, but 1 hold that, notwilhstaMdinsr all 
this, there is no reason in the world why the ne^ro is not entitled to all the 
natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, — the right 
to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I hohl that he is as much 
entitled to these as the white man. I ai^ree with .fudj.'e Douirlas, he is 
not my e<jiial in many respects, — certainly not in color, perhaps not in 
moral or intellectual endowments. But in the right to eat the bread, with- 
out leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he ui my equal, and 
the equal of Judge Dour/las, and the eriunl nf every living man.'" 

Upon a subsequent occasion, when the reason for making a state- 
ment like this recurred, I said: — 

•' While I was at the hotel to-day. an elderly gentleman called upon me 
to know whether 1 was really in favor of producing perfect equality be- 
tween the negroes and white people. While I h.ul not i)roposed to my- 
self on thi.s occasion to say much on that subject, yet. as the cjuestiou was 
asked me, I thought I would occupy perhaps live minutes in saying some- 
thing in regard to it. I will say. thi-n, that I am not. nor ever have been, 
in favor of bringing about in any way the social aiul pulitical ecinality of 
the wdiite and black races; that I am not. nor ever have been, in favor of 
making voters or jurors of negroe.s, nor of (pnilifying them to hold otlice. 

or intermarry with tin? white i pie; and I will say in addition to this that 

there is a physical dilft-rence between the white and black races which I 
believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of .social 
and |iolitica] ecpiality. And iiiitsmuch as they cannot so live, while they 
«lo remain togetlwr there must l)e (he position of superi<»r and inferior, 
and I. as much as any other man. am in favor of having the superit)r [Ktsi- 
tion assigned to the white race. I say uikju this occasion I do not perceive 
thai because the white man is to have the superior iKJsition. the negro 



COLUMBUS, OHIO, SEPTEMBER 16, 1839. 459 

should 1)(' dcMiiod everything:. I do not undersliind thut because I do not 
want a ne?ro woman for a slave, I must necessarily want her for a wile. 
My understanding is that I can just let her alone. 1 am now in my fiftietii 
year, and I certainly never have had a blacl< woman f(jr eilhrr a slave or a 
wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making 
either slaves or wives of negroes. 1 will add to this,] have never seen, lo 
my knowledge, a man. woman, or child, who was in favor of producing 
perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white rm-u. I 
recollect of but one distinguislKHl instance that I ever heard of so fre- 
quently as to be satisfied of its correctness, — and that is the case of Judge 
Douglas's old friend, Colonel Richard M. Johnson. I will also add to the 
remarks I have made (for I am not going to enter at large upon this sub- 
ject), that I have never had the least apprehension that I or my friends 
would marry negroes, if there was no law to keep them from it; but as 
Judge Douglas and his friends seem to be in great apprehension that they 
might, if there were no law to keep them from it, I give him the most sol- 
emn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of the State which 
forbids the marrj-ing of white people with negroes." 

There, my friends, you have brieflly what I have, upon former 
occasions, said upon this subject to which the newspaper, to the ex- 
tent of its ability, has drawn the public attention. In it you not 
only perceive, as a probability, that in that contest I did not at an}- 
time say I was in favor of uegro suffrage, but tlie absolute proof 
that twice — once substantial]}-, and once expressly — I decl:ued 
against it. Having shown you this, there remains but a word 
of comment upon that newspaper article. It is this : that I pre- 
sume the editor of that paper is an honest and truth-loving man, 
and that he will be greatly obliged to me for furnishing him thus 
early an opportunity to correct the misrepresentation he has made, 
before it has run so long that malicious people can call him a liar. 

The Giant himself has been here recently. I have seen a brief 
report of his speech. If it were otherwise unpleasant to me to in- 
troduce the subject of the negro as a topic for discussion, I might 
be somewhat relieved by the fact that he dealt exclusively in that 
subject while he was here. I shall, therefore, without much hesita- 
tion or diffidence, enter upon this subject. 

The American people, on tiie first day of January, isr)4, found 
the African slave-trade prohibited by a law of Congress. In a ma- 
jority of the States of this Union, they found African slaverj', or 
any other sort of slavery, prohibited by State constitutions. They 
also found a law existing, supposed to be valid, by which slavery 
was excluded from almost all the territory the United States then 
owned. This was the condition of the country, with reference to 



460 SPEECH OF LINCOLN, 

the institutiou of slavery, on the first of January, 1854. A few 
days after that, a hill, was intrndiurd into Congress, -which ran 
through its n-gidar course in the two l)rancliis of tlie Nat:on;d Leg- 
islature, and iinally passed into a law in tlie month of >Iay, by 
which the Act of Congress prohibiting slavery from going into the 
Territories of the United States w;!S repealed. In connection with 
the l:iw itself, and, in fact, in the terms of the law, the then exist- 
ing prohiltition was not only repealed, but there was a declaration 
of a purpose on the part of Congress never thereafter to exercise any 
power th.it they might have, real or supposed, to i)n)hibit the ex- 
tension or spread of slavery. This was a very great change; for the 
law thus repealed was of more than thirty years' standing. Follow- 
ing rapidly upon the heels of this action of Congress, a decision of 
the Supreme Court is made, by which it is declared that Congress, 
if it desires to prohibit the spread of slavery into the Territories, 
has no constitutional jjower to do so. Not only so, but that decis- 
ion lays down principles which, if pushed to their logical conclusion, 
— I say pushed to their logical conclusion, — would decide liiat the 
constitutions of l-'n-e States, foiliiddiiig slavery, are themsehcs 
unconstitutional. Mark me, I do not say the judges said this, and 
let no man say I affirm the judges used these words; but I only say 
it is my opinion that what they did say, if pressed to its logical con- 
clusion, will inevitably result thus. 

CHIEF I'l'RI'OSK OK TIIK RKITBI.ICA.N ORG.V.NIZ.VTION. 

Looking at these things, the Republican part}', as I understand 
its principles and policy, believe that there is great danger of the 
institution of slavery being spread out and extcndecl until it is 
ultimately iiia<le alike lawful in all the States of this riiioii; so l)i'- 
ru'ving. to prevent that incidental and ultimate constimmation is the 
original and chief purpose of the Republican organization. I sav 
"chief jMirpose ' of the Repuiilican organization; for it is certainly 
true that if the National House shall fall into the hands of the lie- 
publicans, they will have to attend to all the other niatti-rs of Na- 
tional Housekeeping, as well as this. The chief and real i)urpose 
of the Republican party is eminently conservative. It i)ropo.ses 
nothing save and except to restore this (lovernment to its original 
tone in regard to this element of slavery, and there to maintain it, 
looking for no furtln-r change in reference to it than that whi<-h the 
original framers of the (Jovernnient themselves expected an<l looked 
forwaid to. 



COLUMBUS, OHIO, SEPTEMBER IG, 1859. .JCl 

The chief danger to this purpose of the Republicau party is not 
just now the revival of the African slave trade, or the passage of a 
Congressional slave-code, or the declaring of a second Dred Scott 
decision, making slavery lawful in all the States. These are not 
pressing us just now. They are not quite ready yet. The autliors 
of these measures know that we are too strong for tliem; but they 
will be upon us in due time, and we will be grappling with them 
hand in hand, if they are not now headed oflf. They arc not now 
the chief danger to the purpose of the Kepublican organization ; but 
the most imminent clanger that now threatens that purpose is that 
insidious Douglas Popular Sovereignty. This is the miner and sap- 
per. While it does not propose to revive the African slave trade, 
nor to pass a slave-code, nor to maiie a second Dred Scott decision, 
it is preparing us for the onslaught and charge of these ultimate 
enemies when they shall be ready to come on, and the word of com- 
mand for them to advance shall be given. I say this "Douglas 
Popular Sovereignty," for there is a broad distinction, as I 
now understand it, between that article and a genuine Popular 
Sovereignty. 

I believe there is a genuine Popular Sovereignty. I think a 
definition of "genuine Popular Sovereignty," in the abstract, would 
be about tliis: That each man shall do precisely as he pleases with 
himself, and with all those things which exclusively concern him. 
Applied to government, this principle would be, that a general 
government shall do all those things which pertain to it, and 
all the local governments sliall do precisely as they please in 
respect to those matters which exclusively concern them. I 
understand that this Government of the United States, under 
which we live, is based upon this principle; and I am misunder- 
stood if it is supposed that I have any war to make upon that 
principle. 

Now, what is Judge Douglas's Popular Sovereignty ? It is, as a 
principle, no other than that, if one man chooses to make a slave of 
another man, neither that other man nor anybody else has a right 
to object. Applied in government, as he seeks to apply it, it is 
this: If, in a new Territory into which a few people are beginning 
to enter for the purpose of making their homes, they choose to 
either exclude slavery from their limits or to establish it there, 
however one or the other may affect the persons to be enslaved, or 
the infinitely greater number of persons who are afterward to inhabit 
that Territory, or the other members of the families of comuumi- 



402 Sl'EECll OK LINCOLN. 

ties, of which tlicy are but iiii incipient member, or the general 
head of the family of States as parent of all,— however their action 
may effect one or the other of these, there is uo power or right to 
interfere. That is Douglass Pn|)ular Sovereignty aj)plietl. 

He has a gootl deal of troulile with Popular Sovereignty. Ilis 
exphiiiations explanatory of explanations explained are interminable. 
The most lengthy, and, as I suppose, the most maturely considered 
of his long series of explanations is his great essay in ''Harper's 
Magazine.' I will not attempt to enter on any very thorough in- 
vestigation of his argument as there made and presented. I 
will nevertlieless occupy a good portion of your time here in draw- 
ing your attention to certain points in it. Such of you as may liave 
read this document will have perceived that the Judge, earl}' in the 
document quotes from two pei'sons as belonging to the Republican 
party, without naming them, but who can readily be recognized as 
lieing Governor Seward of New York and myself. It is true that 
exactly fifteen months ago this tlay, I believe, I for tiie first time 
expressed a sentiment upon tliis sul)ject, and in such a manner tliat 
it should get into print, that the public might see it beyond the 
circle of my hearers; and my expression of it at that time is the 
(| notation that Judge Douglas makes. He has not made the quota- 
tion with accuracy, Init justice to him requires me to say that it is 
sutlleiently accurate not to change its sense. 

The sense of that quotation condensed is this: that this slavery 
element is a durable element of discord among us, and that we shall 
probaljly not have perfect peace in this country with it until it either 
masters the free principle in our Government, or is so far mastered 
by the free principle as for the public mind to rest in the belief 
that it is going to its end. This sentiment, which 1 now express 
in this way, was. at no great distance of time, perhaps in dillerent 
language, and in connection with some collateral ideas, expressed 
by Governor Seward. Judge Douglas has been so much annoyed 
by the expression of that sentiment that he has constantly, I believe, 
in almost all his speeches since it was uttered, bei'il referring to it. 
I find lie alluded to it in his speech here, as well as in the copyright 
essay. 1 do not now enter upon this for the purpose of making an 
elaborate argument to show that we were right in the expression of 
that sentiment. In other words, I shall not stop to say all tliat 
might properly Imj said upon this point, Itiit I only asU your attcn- 
ti<»n to it for the purpose of making one or two points upon it, 



COLUMBUS, OHIO, SEPTEMBER 1(5, 1859. 4(;:>, 

If you will i-ead the copyright essay, you Avill discover tli:it 
Judge Doughis himself says a controversy between the American 
Colonies and the Government of Great Britain began on the slavery 
question in 1699, and continued from that time until the Revolu- 
tion; and, while he did not say so, we all know that it has continued 
with more or less violence ever since the Revolution. 

Then we need not appeal to history, to the declarations of the 
framers of the Government, but we know from Judge Douglas him- 
self that slavery began to be an element of discord among the white 
people of this country as far back as 1699, or one hundred and 
sixty years ago, or live generations of men, — counting thirty years 
to a generation. Now, it would seem to me that it might have 
occurred to Judge Douglas, or anybody who had turned his atten- 
tion to these facts, that there was something in the nature of that 
thing, slavery, somewhat durable for mischief and discord. 

WHEN THERE W.\S PEACE ON THE QUESTION. 

There is another point I desire to make in regard to this matter, 
before I leave it. From the adoption of the Constitution down to 
1820 is the precise period of our history when we had comparative 
peace upon this question,— the precise period of time when we 
came nearer to having peace about it than any other time of that 
entire one hundred and sixty years in which he says it began, or of 
the eighty years of our own Constitution. Then it would be worth our 
while to stop and examine into the probable reason of our coming 
nearer to having peace then than at any other time. This was the 
precise period of time in which our fathers adopted, and during 
which they followed, a policy restricting the spread of slavery, and 
the whole Union was acquiescing in it. The whole country looked 
forward to the ultimate extinction of the institution. It was when 
a policy had been adopted, and was prevailing, which led all just 
and right-minded men to suppose that slavery was gradually com- 
ing to an end, and that they might be quiet about it, watching it as 
it expired. 

I think Judge Douglas might have perceived that too; and 
whether he did or not, it is worth the attention of fair-minded men, 
here and elsewhere, to consider whether that is not the truth of the 
case. If he had looked at these two facts, — that this matter has 
been an element of discord for one hundred and sixty years among 
this people, and that the only comparative peace we have had about 



Hij sp?:ech <>f i.incoln. 

it was wbi'M that [Milic-y prt-vaiU'tl in this (Jovcnmirnt, whidi la* now 
wars ui>un, — \\v nii^lit tlu'ii, perhaps, liavf ht-i'ii hnuight to a more 
just appreciation of what I said fifteen nionlhs aj^o. — that "a 
lumse divided against itself cannot stand. I l)elieve that this 
(Jovernnient cannot enthire permanently, half Slave and half Free. 
1 do not expect the house to fail, 1 do not expect the I'nion to dis- 
solve; but I (?o expect it will cease to be divided, li will become 
all one thinir. o; al! the o.lur Either the opponents of slavery will 
arrest the further spread of il, and place il wliere the public mind 
will rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, 
or its advocates will push it forward until it shall become alike law- 
ful in all the States, old as well as new, North as well as South."' 

That was my sentiment at that time. In connection with it, I 
said: ''We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was ini- 
tiated with tlie avowed object and confident promise of putting an 
end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that 
agitation has not onl}- not ceased, but has constantly augmented. "' I 
now say to 30U here that we are advanced still farther into the sixth 
year since that policy of Judge Douglas — that Popular Sovereignty 
of his — for (|uieting the slavery (juestion was made the national 
policy. Fifteen months more have been added since I uttered that 
sentiment; and I call upon you and all other right-minded men to 
say whether that fifteen months have belied or corrol)orated my 
w<^)rds. 

While T am here upon this subject, I cannot but express grati- 
tude that this true view of this element of discord among us — as I 
bt'lieve it is — is attracting more and more attention. 1 ilo not 
Ijelieve that Governor Seward uttered that sentimi'Ut because I had 
done so before, but because he reflected upon this subject and saw 
the truth of it. Nor do I believe, because (tovernor Seward or I 
uttered it, that Mr. Hickman of Pennsylvania, in diirerent language, 
since that time, has declared his belief in the utter antagonism which 
exists l»etween the principles of lil)erty and slavery. You see we are 
multiplying. Now. while 1 am speaking of liiikinan, let me say, I 
know but little about him. I have never seen him, and know 
s<'arcely anything about the man; but 1 will say this much of him: 
Of all the anti-jjecompton Democracy that have been brought to my 
notice, he alone has the true, genuine ring of the niet:il. And now, 
without indorsing anything el.se he has said, I will ask this audience 
to give tlirec cheers for llickinan. [The audience responded with 
three |-ousing cheers for llickinan.] 



COLUMBUS, OHIO, SEPTEMBER 10, ISoO. ^O;, 

Another point in the copyright essay to which T would ask your 
attention is rather a feature to be extracted from the whole thing, 
than from any express declaration of it at any point. It is a gen- 
eral feature of that document, and, indeed, of all Judge Douglas's 
discussions of this question, that the Territories of the United 
States and the States of this Union are exactly alike; that there is 
no difference between them at all; that the Constitution applies to 
the Territories precisely as it does to the States; and that the 
United States Government, under the Constitution, may not do in a 
State what it may not do in a Territory, and what it must do in a 
State it must do in a Territory. Gentlemen, is that a true view of 
the case? It is necessary for this squatter sovereignty, but is it 
true? 

Let us consider. What does it depend upon? It depends alto- 
gether upon the proposition that the States must, without the inter- 
ference of the General Government, do all those things that pertain 
exclusively to themselves, — that are local in their nature, that have 
no connection with the General Government. After Judge Douglas 
has established this proposition, which nobody disputes or ever has 
disputed, he proceeds to assume, without proving it, that slavery is 
one of those little, unimportant, trivial matters which are of just 
about as much consequence as the question would be to me w-hether 
my neighbor should raise horned cattle or plant tobacco; that there 
is no moral question about it, but that it is altogether a matter of 
dollars and cents; that when a new Territory is opened for settle- 
ment, the first man who goes into it may plant there a thing which, 
like the Canada thistle or some other of those pests of the soil, can- 
not be dug out by the millions of men who will come thereafter; 
that it is one of those little things that is so trivial in its nature 
that it has no effect upon anybody save the few men who first plant 
upon the soil ; that it is not a thing which in any way affects the 
family of communities composing these States, nor in any way endan- 
gers the General Government. Judge Douglas ignores altogether 
the very well known fact that we have never had a serious menace 
to our political existence, except it sprang from this thing, which 
he chooses to regard as only upon a par with onions and potatoes. 

Turn it, and contemplate it in another view. He says that, ac- 
cording to his Popular Sovereignty, the General Government may 
give to the Territories governors, judges, marshals, secretaries, and 
all the other chief men to govern them, but they must not touch 
upon this other question. Why ? The question of who shall be 
30 



4(50 SPEECH OF MNCOI.N. 

^oviTiJor of a Torritorv for :i year or two, and pass away, without 
his trark hi-iiij^ U'ft upon the soil, or an att which he did for j^ood 
or for evil Iteinjj; left liehiiid, is u (jiiestiou of vast national iuaj<;ni- 
tiule; it is so much opposed in its nature to locality that the nation 
itself must decide it: while this other matter of planting slavery 
upon a soil, — a thing which, once planted, cannot he eradicated hy 
the succeeding millions who have us much right there as the (irst 
comers, or, if eradicated, not without infinite dilliculty and a long 
struggle, — he considers the |)ower to prohibit it as one of these 
little local, trivial things that the nation ought not to say a word 
about; that it atl'ects nobody save the few men who are there. 

Take these two things and consider them together, present the 
(|Ucstion of planting a State with the institution of slavery by the 
sidi- of a (|uestion of who shall be (Jovernor of Kansas for a year or 
two, and is there a man here, — is there a man on earth, — who 
would not say the governor (piestion is the little one, and the slavery 
iiueslion is the great one? I ask any honest Democrat if the small, 
the local, and the trivial and temporary (juestion is not, Who shall 
be governor? While the durable, the important, anil the mischiev- 
ous one is, Shall this soil be planted with slavery? 

This is an idea, I suppose, which has arisen in Judge Douglas's 
mind from his peculiar structure. 1 suppose the institution of 
slavery really looks small to him. He is so put up by nature that 
a lash upon his back would hurt him, but a lash upon anybody 
else's back does not hurt him. That is tiie Imild of the man. and 
consequently he looks upon tiie matter of slavery in this unimpor- 
tant light. 

Judge Douglas (tuglit to remember, when he is endeavoring to 
force this policy upon the American people, that while he is put up 
in that way, a good many are not. He ought to rememl>er that 
there was once in this country a man l)y the name of Thomas Jeffer- 
.son, supposed to be a Democrat, — a man whosi' principles and 
policy are not very prevalent amongst Democrats to-day, it is true; 
but that man did not take exactly this view of tin- insignificance of 
the element of slavery which our friend Judge Douglas does. In 
contemplation of this thing, we all know he was led to exclaim. "I 
tremble for my country when 1 remember that God is just I " We 
know how he looked upon it wiien he thus expicssed himself. 
There was danger to this country, — danger of the avenging justice 
of (Joil. - in that little unimportant Popular Sovereignty question of 
•ludge DciUglas. He supposed there was a (piestion of (Jod's eternal 



COLUMBUS, OHIO. SEPTEMBER 10, 1859. 467 

justice wrapped up in the enslaving of any race of men, or any 
man, and that those wlio did so braved the arm of Jehovah; that 
when a nation thus dared the Almighty, every friend of that nation 
liad cause to dread his wrath. Choose ye between Jett'er.son and 
Douglas as to what is the true view of this element among us. 

There is another little diQiculty about this matter of treating tiie 
Territories and States alike in all things, to which I ask your atten- 
tion, and I shall leave this branch of the case. If there is no ditl'er- 
ence between them, why not make the Territories States at once? 
What is the reason that Kansas was not fit to come into the Union 
when it was organized into a Territory, in Judge Douglass view? 
Can any of you tell any reason why it should not have come into 
the Union at once? They are fit, as he thinks, to decide upon the 
slavery question, — the largest and most important with which they 
could possibly deal: what could they do by coming into the Union 
that they are not fit to do, according to his view, by staying out of 
it? Oil, they are not fit to sit in Congress and decide upon the 
rates of postage, or questions of ad valorem or specific duties on 
foreign goods, or live oak timber contracts, — they are not fit to 
decide these vastly important matters, which are national in their 
import, — but they are fit, "from the jump," to decide this little 
negro question. But, gentlemen, the case is too plain; I occupy 
too much time on this head, and I pass on. 

Near the close of the cop3Tight e.ssay, the Judge, I think, comes 
very near kicking his own fat into the fire. I did not think, when 
I commenced these remarks, that I would read from that article, 
but I now believe I will : — 

"This exposition of the history of these measures sliows conclusively 
that the authors of the Compromise Measures of 1850 and of the Kansas- 
Nebraska Act of 1S54, as well as the members of the Continental Congress 
of 1774, and the founders of our system of jifovernment subsequent to the 
Revolution, regarded the people of the Territories and Colonies as political 
communities which were entitled to a free and exchisive power of legisla- 
tion in their provisional legislatures, where their representation could 
alone be preserved, in all cases of taxation and internal polity." 

When the Judge saw that putting in the word "slavery ' would 
contradict his own history-, he put in what he knew would pass as 
synonymous with it, — "internal polity." Whenever we find that 
in one of his speeches, the substitute is used in this manner ; and I 
can tell you the reason. It would be too bald a contradiction to 
say slavery; but " internal polity" is a general phrase, which would 



408 SPEECH OF LIXCOLX, 

pass in sonif qmirters, ami which he hopes will pass with the rend- 
ing couiiuunity for tiie same thing. 

' This rij.'lu iM^rliiiiis to the pt'opli* colU'Ctivi'ly, us a hiw-abldiiij,' and 
pcacfful community, and not In tht« isolated individuals who maj' wander 
u|K>n the public domain in violation of the law. It can only be e.vercised 
white there are inhabitants suflicient to constitute a government, and 
capable «>f iM-rforminj? its various functions and duties, — a fact lo be 
ascertained and iletermined by" — 

Wlio ih) you think ? Judge Douglas says: — 

'• lly Congress ! " " Whether the number .shall be fixed at ten. flfieen 
or twenty thousand inhabitants, does not atfect the principle." 

Now, I have only a few comments to make. Popular Sover- 
eignty, l»y his own words, does not pertain to llu- few persons who 
wander upon the public domain in violation of law. We have his 
words for that. When it does pertain to them, is when they are 
suflicient to bo formed into an organized political communitj-, and 
he fixes the minimum for that at ten thousand, and the maximum 
at twenty thousand. Now, I would like to know what is to be 
done with the nine thousand? Are they all to be treated, until they 
are large enough to be organized into a political community, as 
wanderers upon the public land, in violation of law? And if so 
treated and driven out, at what point of time would there ever be 
ten thousand? If they were not driven out, but remained there as 
trespas.sers upon the public land in violation of the law, can they 
estal)lish slavery there? No; the Judge says Popular Sovereignty 
don't pertain to them then. Can they exclude it then? No; 
Popular Sovereignty do n't pertain to them then. I would like to 
know, in the case covered by the essay, what condition the people 
of the Territory are in before they reach the number of ten thousand? 

Hut the main point I wish to ask attention tt> is, that the ques- 
tion as to wh«'n they shall have reached a suflicient number to be 
formed into a regular organized community is to be decided "by 
Congress." Judge Douglas says so. Well, gentlemen, that is 
about all we want. No, that is all the Southerners want. That 
IS what all those who are for slavery want. They do not want Con- 
gress to prohibit slavery from coming into the new Territories, and 
they <lo not want Popular Sovereignty to hinder it; and as Congress 
is to say when they are ready to be organize<l, all that the South has 
to rlo is t<» get Congress to hold olF. Let Congress hold olF until they 
are rendv to be iiduiitleil :is :i Sl:ite, :ui(l the South has all it wants 



COLUMBUS, OHIO, SEPTEMBER 16, 1859. 469 

in Uikiug shivery into and planting it in all the Territories that wc 
now have, or hereafter may have. In a word, the whole thing, 
:it a dash of the pen, is at last put in the power of Congress; for 
if they do not have this Popular Sovereignty until Congress organ- 
izes them, I ask if it at last does not coine from Congre.ss? If, at 
last, it amounts to anything at all. Congress gives it to them. I 
submit this rather for your reflection than for comment. After all 
that is said, at last, by a dash of the pen, everything that has gone 
l)efore is fmdone, and he puts tlie whole question under tlie control 
of Congress. After fighting through more than three hours, if you 
undertake to read it, he at last places the whole matter under the 
control of that power which he had been contending against, and 
arrives at a result directly contrary to what he had been laboring 
to do. He at last leaves the whole matter to the control of Con- 
gress. 

THE REVOLUTIONARY TIMES. 

There are two main objects, as I understand it, of this Harper's 
Magazine essay. One was to show, if possible, that the men of our 
Revolutionary times were in favor of his Popular Sovereignty, and 
the other was to show that the Dred Scott decision had not entirely 
squelched out this Popular Sovereignty. I do not propose, in re- 
gard to this argument drawn from the history of former times, to 
enter into a detailed examination of the historical statements he 
has made. I have the impression that they are inaccurate in a 
great many instances, — sometimes in positive statement, but very 
much more inaccurate by the suppression of statements that really 
lielong to the history. But I do not propose to affirm that this is 
so to an\' very great extent, or to enter into a very minute exami- 
nation of his historical statements. I avoid doing so upon this 
principle, — that if it were important for me to pass out of this lot 
in the least period of time possible, and I came to that fence, and 
saw b}^ a calculation of my known strength and agility that I could 
clear it at a bound, it would be folly for me to stop and consider 
whether I could or not crawl through a crack. So I say of the 
whole history contained in his essay where he endeavored to link 
the men of the Revolution to Popular Sovereignty. It only re- 
quires an effort to leap out of it, a single bound to be entirely 
successful. 

If you read it over, you will find that he quotes here and there 
from documents of the Revolutionary times, tending to show that 



470 SPEECH OF LINCOLN. 

the people of the colonies were desirous of repihiting their o\v;i 
eonceriis in their own way, that the British ( Jovernmcnt should nut 
inttrfere; tliat at one time they striij^i^jed with tiie liritish (Jovern- 
nieut to lie permitted to exclude the African slavetrude, — if not 
directly, to he permitted to exclude it indirectly, l»y taxation sulH- 
eient to discoura}i;e and destroy it. From these and many thinj<;8 
of this sort, .ludj^e Douijlas art^ues that they were in favor of the 
people of our own Territories cxcliidini; slavery if they wanted to. 
or planting it there if they wantcci to, doing just as they plcasiMl 
from the time they settled upon the Territory. Now, however hi.s 
history may apply; and whatever of his argument tlure may be 
that is sound ami accurate or unsound and inaccurati', if we can 
find out what these men did themselves do upon this very question 
of slavery in the Territories, does it not end the whole thing ? If, 
after all this laltor and ell'ort to show that the men of the Revolu- 
tion were in favor of his Popular Sovereignty and his mode of 
dealing with slavery in the Territories, we can show that these very 
men took hold of that suUject, and dealt with it, we can see for 
ourselves Imir they dealt with it. It is not a matter of argument or 
inference, but we know what the}' thought about it. 

It is precisely upon that part of the history of the country that 
one important omission is made b}' Judge Douglas. He selects 
parts of the history of the United States upon the subject of slav- 
ery, and treats it as the whole, omitting from his historical sketch 
the legislation of Congress in regard to the admission of Missouri, 
by which the Missouri (\)mpromise was established, and slavery 
excluded from a country half as large as the present United States. 
All this is left out of his history, and in no wise alluded to by him, 
so far as I can remember, save once, when he makes a remark, that 
ui)on his principle the Supreme Court was authorized to pronounce 
II decision that the Act called the Missouri Compromise was uncon- 
stitutional. All that history has been left out. I>ut this part of 
the history of the country was not nnide by the men of the Revo- 
lution. 

TIIK oUniNANTK OF '87. 

There was another part of our i)olilical history, made by the 
very men who were the actors in the Kevolution, which has tak«'n 
the name of tlie Ordinance of S7 Let me bring that history to 
your attention. 

In 1781, 1 believe, this same y\i\ .Jellersoii drew up an ordi- 



COLUMBUS, OHIO, SEPTEMBER 16, 1859. 471 

nance for the government of the country upon which we now stand, 
or, rather, a friime or draft of an ordinance for the government of 
this country, here in Ohio, our neighbors in Indiana, us who live 
in Illinois, our neighbors in Wisconsin and Michigan. In that 
ordinance, drawn up not only for the government of that Territory, 
but for the Territories south of the Ohio Iliver, Mr. Jetl'erson ex- 
pressly provided for the prohibition of slavery. Judge Douglas 
says, and perhaps is right, that that provision was lost from that 
ordinance. I believe that is true. When the vote was taken upon 
it, a majority of all present in the Congress of the Confederation 
voted for it; but there were so many absentees that those voting 
for it did not make the clear majority necessary, and it was lost. 
But three years after that, the Congress of the Confederation were 
together again, and they adopted a new ordinance for the govern- 
ment of this Northwest Territory, not contemplating territory south 
of the river, for the States owning that territory had hitherto re- 
frained from giving it to the General Government; hence they made 
the ordinance to apply only to what the Government owned. In 
that, the provision excluding slavery was inserted and pttssrd. unani- 
mously^ or at any rate it passed and became a part of the law of the 
land. Under that ordinance we live. 

First here in Ohio 3'ou were a Territory, then an enabling Act 
was passed, authorizing you to form a constitution and State Gov- 
ernment, provided it was republican and not in conflict with the 
Oidinance of '87. When yon framed your constitution and pre- 
sented it for admission, I think you will find the legislation upon 
the subject will show that, ' ' whereas you had formed a constitu- 
tion that was republican, and not in conflict with the Ordinance of 
'87," therefore, you were admitted upon equal footing with the 
original States. The same process in a few years was gone through 
with in Indiana, and so with Illinois, and the same substantially 
with Michigan and Wisconsin. 

Not only did that Ordinance prevail, but it was constantly 
looked to whenever a step was taken by a new Territory to become 
a State. Congress always turned their attention to it, and in all 
their movements upon this subject they traced their course by that 
Ordinance of '87. When they admitted new States, they advertised 
them of this Ordinance, as a part of the legislation of the country. 
They did so because they had traced the Ordinance of '87 through- 
out the history of this country. Begin with the men of the Revolu- 
tion, and go down for sixty entire years, and until the last scrap of 



47J SPEECH OF LIN( ol.N. 

that Territory comes into tlie raiou in the form of the State of 
Wisconsin, everything was made to conform with tiie Ordinance 
of '87, exchuling shiver}" from that vast extent of country. 

I omitted to mention in the rijxht phice that the Constitution of 
the I'nited Stales was in process of l)ein<4 framed wlien that (Jrdi- 
nance was made by the Congress of the Confederation; and one of 
(lie first Acts of Congress itself, under the new Constitution itself, 
was to give force to that Ordinance by putting power to carry it out 
in the hands of the new ollieers under the Constitution, in the place 
of the old ones, who h:id been legislated out of existence by the 
change in the. (rovernment from the Confederation to the Constitu- 
tion. Not only so. but 1 believe Indiana once or twice, if not Ohio, 
petitioned the (jeneral (iovernmenl for the privilege of suspending 
that provision and allowing them to hav<* slaves. A report made 
by Mr. Randoli^h, of Virginia, himself a slaveholder, was directly 
against it, and the acti<Mi was to refuse them the privilege of violat- 
ing the Ordinance of '87. 

This period of history, which 1 have run over briefly, is, I pre- 
sume, as familiar to most of this assembly as any other part of the 
history of our country. I suppose that few of my hearers are not 
as familiar with that part of history as I am, and I only mention it 
to recall your attention to it at this time. And hence I ask how 
extraordinary a thing it is that a man who has occupied a position 
upon the floor of the Senate of the United States, who is now in his 
third term, and who looks to see the government of this whole 
country fall into his own hands, pretending to give a truthful and 
accurate history of the slavery (question in this country, should so 
entirely ignore the whole of tliat portion of our history*, — the most 
important of all. Is it not a most extraordinary spectacle that a 
man should stand up ami ask for any confidence in his statements 
who sets out as lie does with portions of history, calling upon the 
people to believe that it is a true and fair representation, when the 
leading part and cf)ntroHing feature of tlic whole history is carefully 
suppressed? 

|{ul the mere U-aving out is iiol the most remarkalile feature of 
this iii<»st remarkable essay. His pru|iosition is to estalilish that 
the leading men of the Revolution were for his great priiici()le of 
non-intervention by the government in the (juestion of slavery in 
the Territories, while history shows that they decided in the cases 
actually brought before them, in exactly the contrary w.ny, and he 
knows it. Not only did they so decide at that time, but the}' stuck 



COLUMBUS, OHIO, SEPTEMBER 10. 1859. 473 

to it (luring sixty years, through thick and thin, as long as there 
was one of tlie Rev(jlutionary heroes upon the stage of political ac- 
tion. Through their whole course, from first to last, they clung to 
freedom. And now he asks the community to believe that the men 
of the Kevolution were in favor of his great principle, when we have 
the naked history that they themselves dealt with this very suhjeet- 
matter of his principle, and utterly repudiated his principle, acting 
upon a precisely contrary ground. It is as impudent and alisurd as 
if a prosecuting attorney should stand up before a jury and a.sk them 
to convict A as the murderer of 13, while B was walking alive be- 
fore them. 

I say, again, if Judge Douglas asserts that the men of the 
Revolution acted upon principles by which, to be consistent with 
themselves, they ought to have adopted his Popular Sovereignty, 
then, upon a consideration of his own argument, he had a right to 
make you believe that they understood the principles of govern- 
ment, but misapplied them, — that he has arisen to enliguten the 
world as to the just application of this principle. He has a right to 
try to persuade you that he understands their principles better than 
they did, and, therefore, he will apply them now, not as the}' did, 
but as they ought to have done. He has a right to go before the 
community and try to convince them of this, but he has no right to 
attempt to impose upon any one the belief that these men them- 
selves approved of his great principle. There are two ways of es- 
tablishing a proposition. One is by trying to demonstrate it upon 
reason, and the other is, to show that great men in former times 
have thought so and so, and thus to pass it by the weight of pure 
authority. Now, if Judge Douglas will demonstrate somehow that 
this is Popular Sovereignty, — the right of one man to make a slave 
of another, without any right in that other, or anj^ one else to ob- 
ject, — demonstrate it as Euclid demonstrated propositions, — there is 
no objection. But when he comes forward, seeking to carry a prin- 
ciple by bringing to it the authority of men who themselves utterly 
repudiate that principle, I ask that he shall not be permitted to 
do it. 

I see, in the Judge's speech here, a short sentence in these 
words: "Our fathers, when they formed this Government under 
which we live, understood this question just as well, and even bet- 
ter, than we do now." That is true; I stick to that. I will stand 
by Judge Douglas in that to the bitter end. And now. Judge 
Douglas, come and stand by me, and truthfully show how they 



474 SPEEill <>1' LINCOLN. 

;ii-Uh1, uiulcrstnndini; it la'Ufr than wi* do. All I ask of vow, 
.Jiul^i' Douglas, is to slick to the proposition llial the iiifii of the 
UfVoUitioii unilcrstooil tiiis subject better than wt- (h) now, </«</ (////( 
that hi tit r iinili rsttiiii/iiii; tiny itrtnl Ixtit r thun j/mt ore tri/iin/ tu act 
linir. 

I wish to say something now in regard to tlie Dred Scott de- 
cision, as dealt with by Judge Douglas, in thai • lueujoralile de- 
Itate ' lielwien .lutl^e l)on^his and myself, last year, the .liid<;e 
llKniijht lit to eoiiinienee :i process of cuteeliisin<: nu-, and at Free- 
port 1 answered his (juestions, and propounded some to him. Among 
others propounded to him was one that I have here now. The sub- 
stanei'. as [ reinendier it, is, "fan the people of a United States 
Territory, undi-r tlie Dred Seott decision, in any lawful way, agains' 
the wish of any citizen of the United States, exclude slavery from 
lis limits, prior to the formalion of a Stale constitution? " He an- 
swered that they could lawfully exchule slavery from the UniliMl 
St:ites Temtories, notwithstanding the Dred Scott decision. There 
was something about that answer that has probably been a trouble 
to the Judge ever since. 

The Dred Scott decision expressly gives every citizen of the 
United States a right to carry his slaves into the United States 
Territories. And now there was some inconsistency in saying that 
the decision was right, and saying, too, that the pi'ople of the Terri- 
tory could lawfully drive slavery out again. When all the trash, the 
words, the collateral matter, was cleared away from it, all the chatf 
was fanned out of it, it was a bare absurdity, — no Irxs than that a 
thiinj iiiaij III' lairj'n/li/ dn'rrn airai/ /'rom ichcre it has a hnrf'ul riiiht to 
he. Clear it of all the verbiage, and that is the naked Inilh of his 
proiKisilion,— that a thing maybe lawfully driven from tiic placid 
where it has a lawful right to stay. Well, it was because the Judge 
could nt help seeing this that he has had so much trouble with it; 
ami what I want to ask your esjjccial attention to, just now, is to re- 
mind you, if you have ncit noticed the fact, that the Judge does not 
any longer sav that the people can t'xclude slavery. He docs not 
say so in the copyright es.say; he did not say so in the speech that 
he made here; and, so far as I know, since his re-election to the 
Senate he has never said, as he did at l-'rccport, that the people of 
the 'I'erritories can exclude slavery. 

He (lesires that you, who wish the Territories to remain free, 
should iM'licve that he stands by that position; but he does n<)t say 
it himself. He escapes to some extent the absurd position 1 have 



COLUMBUS. OHIO, SEPTEMBER 10, 185!). 475 

stated, by changing his hmguage entirely. What he says now is 
something dillerent in hmguage; and we will consider wliether it i.s 
not difl'erent in sense too. It is now^ that the Dred Scott decision, 
or rather the Constitution under that decision, does not carry 
slavery into the Territories beyond the power of the people of the 
Territories to control it as other properfi/. He does not say the peo- 
ple can drive it out, l)ut they can control it as other i)roperty. The 
language is difterent; we should consider whether tiie sense is difl'er- 
ent. Driving a horse out of this lot is too plain a proposition to be 
mistaken about; it is putting him on the other side of the fence. 
Or it might be a sort of exclusion of him from the lot if }-ou were 
to kill him and let the worms devour him; but neither of these 
things is the same as "controlling him as other property." That 
would be to feed him, to pamper him, to ride him, to use and abuse 
him, to make the most money out of him, "as other property;" 
but please you, what do the men who are in favor of slaver}' want 
more than this? What do they really want, other than that slavery, 
being in the Territories, shall be controlled as other property? 

If they want anything else, I do not comprehend it. I ask 5'our 
attention to this, first, for the purpose of pointing out the change of 
ground the Judge has made; and, in the second place, the impor- 
tance of the change, — that that change is not such as to give 30U 
gentlemen who want his Popular Sovereignty the power to exclude 
the institution or drive it out at all. I know the Judge sometimes 
squints at the argument that in controlling it as other property by 
unfriendly legislation they ma}^ control it to death, as 3'ou might, 
in the case of a horse, perhaps, feed him so lightly and ride him so 
much that he would die. But when you come to legislative control, 
there is something more to be attended to. I have no doubt, myself, 
that if the Territories should undertake to control slave property as 
other property, — thatis, control it in such a way that it would l)e the 
most valuable as property, and make it bear its just proportion in the 
way of burdens as property, — really deal with it as property, — the 
Supreme Court of the United States will say, "God speed j'ou, and 
amen." But I undertake to give the opinion, at least, that if the 
Territories attempt by any direct legislation to drive the man with 
his slave out of the Territory, or to decide that his slave is free be- 
cause of his being taken in there, or to tax him to such an extent 
that he cannot keep him there, the Supreme Court will unhesitatingly 
decide all such legislation unconstitutional, as long as that Supreme 
Court is constructed as the Dred Scott Supreme Court is. The first 



1T(* J^PEECH OF LINCOLN. 

two things they have already decided, except that there is a little 
quibble amoug lawyers between the words " dicta " and •• decision. " 
Tlit'V havi' aln-ady lU'fidi-d a iicj^n) cannot he luaile five l)y Terri- 
torial l»';j.islat i(»ii 

What is the Dred Scott decision? Jiul^'e Dou^das labors to 
sliow that it "is oiu- thin*;, while 1 think it is ultotjether ditrerent. 
It is a loii>; opinion, Itut it is all embodied in this short statement: 
•• Till' Constitution of the I'niled Stales foiliids Congress to deprive 
a man of his property, without due process of law; the right of 
property in slaves is distinetly and expressly aHlriued in that Consti- 
tution: therefore, if (Vmgress shall midertake to say that a man's 
slave is no longer his slave when he crosses a certain line into a 
Territory, that is depriving hiin of his property witliout thw ])roees3 
of law, anil is unconstitutional." There is the whole Dred Scott 
decision. Thev add that if Congress ctmnot do .so itself, Congress can- 
not confer any power to do so; and hence any elfort b}' the Terri- 
torial Legislature to do either of these things is absolutely decided 
against. It is a foregone conclusion l)y that court. 

" UNFRIENDLY LEGISLATION." 

Now, as to this indirect mode by " unfriendly legislation," all 
lawyers here will readily understand that such a proposition cannot 
be tolerated f(»r a moment, because a legislature cannot indirecti}' 
do that which it cannot accomplish directly. Then I say any legis- 
lation to control this property, as property, for its benefit as prop- 
erty, would be hailed by this Dred Scott Supreme Court, and full}' 
sustained; but any legislation driving slave propert}' out, or des- 
troying it as property, directly or indirectly, will most assuredly, by 
that court, be held unconstitutional. 

Judge Douglas says if the Constitution carries slavery into the 
Territf)rie8, beyon<l llie power of the people of the Ti-rritories to 
control it as other property, then it follows logically that every one 
who swears to sujiport the Constitution of the United Stati'S must 
give that support to that property which it needs. And if the Con- 
stittition carries slavery into the Territories, beyond the power of 
the people to control it as other propi-rty, then it also carries it into 
the Stat«'s, because the Constitution is the supreme law of tin' land. 
Now, gentlemen, if it were not for ui}' excessive modesty, I would 
say that I told that very thing to Judge Douglas quite a year ago. 
This argument is ln'n' in print, and if it were not for my modesty, 
as I said, I might call your attention to it. If you read it, you 



COLUMBUS, OHIO, SEPTEMBER 10, 1850. .J77 

will fmd tliat T not only made that argument, but made it better 
than he has made it since. 

There is, however, this difference. I say now, and said then, 
there is no sort of question that the Supreme Court has decided that 
it is the right of the slavehokler to take his slave and hold him in 
the Territory; and saying this, Judge Douglas himself admits the 
conclusion. Tie says if that is so, this consequence will follow; 
and because this consequence would follow, his argument is, the de- 
cision cannot, therefore, be that way, — " that would spoil my Popu- 
lar Sovereignty; and it cannot be possible that this great principle 
has been squelched out in this extraordinary way. It might be, if 
it were not for the extraordinary consequences of spoiling my 
humbug. " 

Another feature of the Judge's argument about the Dred Scott 
case, is, an effort to show that that decision deals altogether in 
declarations of negatives : that the Constitution does not airirm any- 
thing as expounded by the Dred Scott decision, but it only declares 
a want of powder — a total absence of power — in reference to the 
Territories. It seems to be his purpose to make the whole of that 
decision to result in a mere negative declaration of a want of power 
in Congress to do anything in relation to this matter in the Terri- 
tories. I know the opinion of the Judges states that there is a total 
absence of power; but that is, unfortunately, not all it states; foi 
the Judges add that the right of property in a slave is distinctly 
and expressly affirmed in the Constitution. It does not stop at sa}'- 
ing that the right of property in a slave is recognized in the Consti- 
tution, is declared to exist somewhere in the Constitution, but says it 
is affirmed in the Constitution. Its language is equivalent to say- 
ing that it is embodied and so woven in that instrument that it can- 
not be detached without breaking the Constitution itself. In a 
word, it is a part of the Constitution. 

Douglas is singularly unfortunate in his effort to make out that 
decision to be altogether negative, when the express language at 
the vital part is that this is distinctly affirmed in the Constitution. 
I think myself, and I repeat it here, that this decision does not 
merely carry slavery into the Territories, but by its logical conclu- 
sion it carries it into the States in which we live. One provision of 
that Constitution is, that it shall be the supreme law of the land, — 
I do not quote the language, — any constitution or law of any State 
to the contrary notwithstanding. This Dred Scott decision s lys 
that the right of property in a slave is affirmed in that Constitution 



478 SPEECH Ol'^ UXCOLN. 

which is the supreme luw of the hind, any State constitution or hiw 
notwithstandint;. Tiicn I say that to destroy a thin^ which is dis- 
tinctly allirnu'd and .siijiporU'd Ity the supreme hiw of the hind, even 
l»y a State constitution or hiw, is a viohition of that supreme hiw, 
and there is no escape from it. Tn my judtimcnt there is no avoid- 
ini; that result, save that the American people shall see that con- 
stitutions are better construed than our Constitution is construed 
in that decision. They must take care that it is more faithfully 
and truly carried out than it is there expounded. 

'• I'OIM'L.MI SoVKllEIfiNTV " AS A I'Ul NCI IM.K. 

I must hasten to a conclusion. Near the beginning of my re- 
marks I said that this insidious Douglas Popular Sovereignty is the 
measure that now threatens the i)urpo.se of the liepulilican party to 
prevent slavery from being nationalized in the United States. I 
propose to ask your attention for a little while to some i)ropositions 
in ailirmance of that statement. Take it just as it stands, and ap- 
ply it as a principle ; extend and apply that principle elsewhere ; 
and consider where it will lead you. 

I now put this proposition, tiiat Judge Douglas's Popular Sover- 
eignty apiilied will re-open the African slave-trade; and 1 will dem- 
onstrate it Ijy any variety of ways in which you can turn the subject 
or look at it. 

The Judge .says that the people of the Territories have the 
right, by his principle, to have slaves, if they want them. Then I 
say that the people in Georgia have the right to buy slaves in 
Africa, if they want them; and I defy any man on earth to show 
any distinction between the two things, — to show that the one is 
either more wicked or more unlawful; to show, on original prin- 
ciples, that one is better or Avorse than the other; or t<> show, l>y 
the Constitution, that one differs a whit fioni the other, lie will 
tell me, doul)tless, that there is no Constitutional provision against 
people Uiking slaves into the new Territories, and 1 tell him there is 
eijiially no Constitutional provision against buying slaves in Africa. 
He will tell you that a people, in the exercise of Popular Sover- 
eignty, ought to do as they plea.se about that thing, and have slaves 
if the}' want them; and I tell you that the people of Georgia are as 
much entitled to Popular Sovereignly and to buy sl.aves in Africa, 
if they want them, as the pj'opU; of the Territory are to have slaves 
if tln-y want tliem. I ask any man, dealing honestly with himsi'ir, 
to point out a disi inct ion. 



COLUMBUS, OHIO, SEPTEMBER IG, 1859. 479 

. I have recenth' seen a letter of Judge Douglas's in whieb, witli- 
out stating that to be the object, he doubtless endeavors to make a 
distinction between the two. He says he is unalterably opposed to 
the repeal of the laws against the African slave-trade. And why ? 
He then seeks to give a reason that would not apply to his populnr 
sovereignty in the Territories. Wluit is that reason? " The aboli- 
tion of the African slave trade is a compromise of the Constitu- 
tion!" I deny it. There is no truth in the proposition that the 
abolition of the African slave-trade is a compromise of the Consti- 
tution. No man can put his finger on anything in the Constitution, 
or on the line of history, which shows it. It is a mere barren as- 
sertion, made simply for the purpose of getting up a distinction 
between the revival of the African slave trade and his "great 
principle. " 

At the time the Constitution of the United States was adopted, 
it was expected that the slave trade would be abolished. I should 
assert and insist upon that, if Judge Douglas denied it. But I 
know that it was equally expected that slavery would Ije excluded 
from the Territories, and I can show by history that in regard to 
these two things public opinion was exactly alike, while in regard 
to positive action, there was more done in the Ordinance of '87 to 
resist the spread of slavery than was ever done to abolish the for- 
eign slave trade. Lest I be misunderstood, I say again that at the 
time of the formation of the Constitution, public expectation was 
that the slave trade would be abolished; but no more so than the 
spread of slaver}' in the Territories should be restrained. They 
stand alike, except that in the Ordinance of '87 there was a mark 
left by public opinion, showing that it was moi'e committed against 
the spread of slaverj' in the Territories than against the foreign 
slave trade. 

Compromise! What word of compromise was there about it? 
Why, the public sense was then in favor of the abolition of the 
slave trade; but there was at the time a very great commercial in- 
terest involved in it, and extensive capital in that branch of trade. 
There w^ere doubtless the incipient stages of improvement in 
the South in the way of farming, dependent on the slave-trade, and 
they made a proposition to Congress to abolish the trade after allow- 
ing it twenty years, — a sufficient time for the capital and commerce 
engaged in it to be transferred to other channels. Tiiey made no 
provision th;it it should be abolished in twenty years; I do not 
doubt that they expected it would be, but they made no bargain 



480 SPEECH »)F LINCOLN, 

about it. Tho pulilic sentiment left no doubt in the minds of anj' 
that it would he done away. I repeat, there is nothing in the his- 
tory of tliose times in favor of that matter l»eing a ci}mj)r(mu'sc of the 
Constitution. It w:is the puitlie expertation at the time, mani- 
festeil in a thousand ways, that the spread of slavery should also be 
restricted. 

Tiien I say. if this principle is established, ilml there is no wrong 
in slavery, and wlioovir wants il lia.s a light to have it; that it is a mat- 
ter of dollars and cents; a 8ort of question as to how they shall deal 
with brutes; that between us and the negro here there is no sort of 
question, but that at the South the question is between the negro 
and the crocodile, that it is a mere matter of policy; that there 
is a iH'ifect riirht, according to interest, to <lo just as you please, — 
when this is done, where this doctrine prevails, the miners and sap- 
pers v/ill have formed public opinion for the slave trade. They will 
be ready for Jeff. Davis and Stephens and other leaders of that com- 
pany to sound the bugls for the revival of the slave trade, f jr the 
second Dred Scott decir.ion, for the flood of slavery to be poured over 
the Free States, while wc shall be here tied down and helpless and 
run over like sheep. 

It is to l)e a part and parcel of tb.is same idea, to say to men 
who want to adhere to the Democratic party, who have always be- 
longed to that part}', and are only looking aiiout for some excuse to 
stick to it, but neverthele.->s hate slavery, that Douglas's Popular 
Sovereignty is as good a wa}' as any to oppose slavery. They allow 
themselves to be persuaded easily, in accordance with their previous 
dispositions, into this belief, that it is about as good a way of op- 
posing slavery as any, and we can do that without straining our old 
party ties or breaking up old political associations. We can do so 
without i)eing called "negro worshipers."' We can do that without 
being subjected to the jibes and sneers that are so reailily lluowii 
out in place of argument where no argument can be found. So h-l 
us stick to this Popular Sovereignty. — this insidious Popular Sover- 
eignty. 

Wll.\r KIVK VKAItS WHnr(iIIT. 

Now let me call y(tur attention to one thing tliat has really 
happened, which shows this gradual and steady debauching of pub- 
lie opinion, this course of preparation for tiie revival of the slave- 
trade, for the Territorial slave code, and the new Dred Scott decis- 
ion Uiut is to carry slavery into the l"'ree SUites. Did you ever, live 



COLUMBUS, OHIO, SEPTEMBER 16, is.")!). 4s 1 

years ago, hear of anybody in the world saying that the negro had 
no share in the Declaration of National Independence; that it did 
not mean negroes at all; and when "all men" were spoken of, ne- 
groes were not included ? 

I am satisfied that five years ago that proposition was not put 
upon paper by any living being anywhere. I have l)ecn unable at 
any time to find a man in an audience who would declare that he 
had ever known of anybody saying so five years ago. But last 
year there was not a "Douglas Popular Sovereignty" man in Ill- 
inois who did not say it. Is there one in Ohio but declares his 
firm belief that the Declaration of Independence did not mean 
negroes at all? I do not know how this is; I have not been here 
much; but I presume you are very much alike everywhere. Then I 
suppose that all now express the belief that the Declaration of 
Independence never did mean negroes. I call upon one of them 
to say that he said it five years ago. 

If you think that now, and did not think it then, the next thing 
that strikes me is to remark that there has been a change wrought 
in you, — and a very significant change it is, being no less than 
changing the negro, in your estimation, from the rank of a man to 
that of a brute. They are taking him down, and placing him, 
when spoken of, among reptiles and crocodiles, as Judge Douglas 
himself expresses it. 

Is not this change wrought in your minds a very important 
change? Public opinion in this country is everything. In a nation 
like ours, this Popular Sovereignty and Squatter Sovereignt}' have 
already wrought a change in the public mind to the extent I have 
stated. There is no man in this crowd who can contradict it. 

Now, if you are opposed to slavery honestly, as much as any- 
body, I ask you to note that fact, and the like of which is to follow, 
to be plastered on, layer after layer, until very soon you are pre- 
pared to deal with the negro everywhere as with the brute. If 
public sentiment has not been debauched already to this point, a 
new turn of the screw in that direction is all that is wanting; and 
this is constantly being done by the teachers of this insidious Popu- 
lar Sovereignty. You need but one or two turns further, until your 
minds, now ripening under these teachings, will be ready for all 
these things, and you will receive and support, or submit to, the 
slave trade, revived with all its horrors, a slave-code enforced in 
our Territories, and a new Dred Scott decision to bring slavery up 
into the very heart of the free North. 
31 



-tS2 SPEECH or LINCOLN. 

Tliis, J imist say, is luit can vin<^ <»ul those words proplicticully 
siRikfii by Mr. (May, — many, many years ago, — I believe more 
tlian thirty years, — when he tohl an audienee that if they would 
repress all tendencies to liberty ami ultimate emancipation, they 
must go back to the eru of our indepi-ndenee, and muzzle the cannon 
whirh thundered its annual joyous return on the Fourth of July; 
they must blow out the moral lights around us; they must penetrate 
the luunan soul, and eratlicate the love of liljerty:but until they 
did these things, and others eloquently enumerated by him, they 
could not repress all tendencies to ultimate emancipation. 

I ask attention to the fact that in a pre-eminent degree these 
Popular Sovereigns are at tills work — lilowing out the moral lights 
aroun<l us; teaching that the negro is no longer a man, but a brute; 
that th«' Declaration has nothing to do with him; that he ranks with 
the crocodile and the reptile; that man, with body and soul, is a 
matter of dollars and cents. I suggest to this portion of the Ohio 
Republicans, or Democrats if there be any present, the serious 
consideration of the fact that there is now going on among you a 
steady process of debauching public opinion on this subject. With 
this, my friends, I bid you adieu. 



LINCOLN'S SPEECH '-TO THE KENTUCKIANS." 

At Cincinnati, Ohio, September 17, 1S5'.). 

My Fellow-Citizens OF THE State of Ohio: This is tiie first 
time in my life tliat I have appeared before au audience in so great 

a city as this. I therefore — though I am no longer a young man 

make this appearance under some degree of embarrassment. But I 
have found that when one is embarrassed, usually the shortest way 
to get through with it is to quit talking or thinking about it, and 
go at something else. 

I understand that you have had recently with you my very dis- 
tinguished friend, Judge Douglas, of Illinois ; and I understand, 
without having had an opportunity (not greatly sought, to be sure) 
of seeing a report of the speech that he made here, that he did me 
tiie honor to mention my humble name. I suppose that he did so 
for the purpose of making some objection to some sentiment at 
some time expressed by me. I should expect, it is true, that Judge 
Douglas had reminded you, or informed you, if you had never before 
heard it, that I had once in my life declared it as my opinion that 
this Government cannot " endure permanently, half Slave and half 
Free; that a house divided against itself cannot stand," and, as I 
had expressed it, I did not expect the house to fall, that I did not 
expect the Union to be dissolved; but that I did expect that it 
would cease to be divided, that it would become all one thing, or all 
the other ; that either the opposition to slavery would arrest the 
further spread of it, and place it where the public mind would rest 
in the belief that it was in the course of ultimate extinction, or the 
friends of slavery will push it forward until it becomes alike lawful 
in all the States, old or new, Free as well as Slave. I did, fifteen 
months ago, express that opinion, and upon many occasions Judge 
Douglas has denounced it, and has greatly, intentionally or uninten- 
tionally, misrepresented my purpose in the expression of that opinion. 

I presume, without having seen a report of his speech, that he 
did so here. I presume that he alluded also to that opinion, in dif- 
ferent language, having been expressed at a subsequent time by 
Governor Seward of New York, and that he took the two in a lump 
and denounced them; that he tried to point out that there was 

[483] 



484 SPEECH (»F I.INCOLN, 

souH'tliing couched in this opinion which led to the making of an 
entire uniformity of the hx-al institutions of the various States of 
the Tnion, in utter disR'ganl of tlie diirerent States, which in their 
nature would seem to recjuire a variety of institutions and a variety 
of laws, conforming to the ditTerences in the nature of the different 
Suites. 

Not only so, I presume he insisted that this was a declaration 
of war between the Vvw and Slavi' States, — that it was tiie sound- 
ing to the onset of conliniial war lietween tlie diiferent States, the 
Slave and Free States. 

This charge, in this form, was made by Judge Douglas, on. I 
believe, the lUh of July, 18r)8, in Chicago, in my hearing. On the 
next evening, 1 made some reply to it. I informed him that many 
of the inferences he drew from that expression of mine were alto- 
gether foreign to any purpose entertained b}' me, and in so far as 
he should ascribe these inferences to me, as my purpose, he was 
entirely misUdien; and in so far as he might argue that whatever 
might be m^' purpose — actions conforming to my views would lead 
to these results, he might argue and establish if he could; but, 
8o far as purposes were concerned, he was totally mistaken as to me. 

When I made that reply to him, when I told him, on the ques- 
tion of declaring war between tht- ditlrrent States of the Tnion, tliat 
I had not said that I did not expect any peace upon this question 
until slavery was exterminated; that I had only said I expected 
jx'ace when that institution was put where the public mind shouhl 
rest in the belief that it was in course of ultimate extinction; that 
I believed, from the organization of our (roveriiment until a very 
recent period of time, the institution had been placed and continueil 
upon such a basis; that we had had comparative peace upon tliat 
question through a i)ortion of that periotl of time, only berause tlie 
public mind rested in that belief in regard to it, an<l that wlu'ii we 
returned to that position in relation to that matter, I supposeil we 
should again have peace as we previously had. I assured him, as 
1 now assure yon, that I neither then had, nor have, nor ever had, 
any purpose in any way of interfering with the institution of slavery, 
where it exists. 

I believe we have no power, under the Constitution of tlie rnited 
States, or rather under the form of (jovernment under which we 
live, to interfere with the institution of slavery, or anj' other of the 
institutions of our sister States, i)e they Free or Slave States. I 
declared then, and I now re-declare, that I have as little inclination 



CINCINNATI. OHIO, SEPTEMBER 17, 1859. 4S.-) 

to interfere with tlie institution of slavery where it now exists, 
through the instrumentality of tlie General Government, or any 
other instrumentality, as I believe we have no power to do so. I 
accidentally used this expression: I had no purpose of entering 
into the Slave States to disturb the institution of slavery! So, 
upon the first occasion that Judge Douglas got an opportunity to 
reply to me, he passed by the whole body of what 1 had said upon 
that subject, and seized upon the particular expression of mine that 
I had no purpose of entering into the Slave States to disturb the 
institution of slavery. "Oh, no,' said he, "he [Lincoln] won't 
enter into the Slave States to disturb the institution of slavery, — 
he is too prudent a man to do such a thing as that; he only means 
that he will go on to the line between the Free and Slave States, 
and shoot over at them. This is all he means to do. He means 
to do them all the harm he can, to disturl) them all he can, in such 
a way as to keep his own hide in perfect safety." 

Well, now, I did not think, at that time, that that was either a 
very dignified, or very logical argument; but so it was, and I had to 
get along with it as well as I could.. 

It has occurred to me here to-night that if I ever do shoot over 
the line at the people on the other side of the line into a Slave 
State, and purpose to do so, keeping my skin safe, that I have now 
about the best chance I shall ever have. I should not wonder that 
there are some Kentuckians about this audience — we are close to 
Kentucky; and whether that bo so or not, we are on elevated 
ground, and, by speaking distinctl}', I should not wonder if some 
of the Kentuckians would hear nie on the other side of the river. 
For that reason I propose to address a portion of what I have to 
say, to the Kentuckians. 

I say, then, in the first place, to the Kentuckians, that I am 
what they call, as I understand it, a " Black Republican." I think 
slavery is wrong, morally and politically. I desire that it should 
be no further spread in these United States, and I should not object 
if it should gradually terminate in the whole Union. 

While I say this for myself, I say to you Kentuckians that I 
understand you differ radically with me upon this proposition; that 
you believe slavery is a good thing; that slavery is right; that it 
ought to be extended and perpetuated in this Union. 

Now, there being this broad difference between us, I do not pre- 
tend, in addressing myself to you Kentuckians, to attempt proselyt- 
ing you ; that would be a vain effort. I do not enter upon it. I 



■4<(; SPEECH OF LINCOLN. 

t>iilv pnijiosf to try to sliuw you that yon (iii<iht to iiominato for tlic 
iifxt Pri'sitU'iK-y, at Chark'ston, my distinj^iusbcd friend Jiui'^i' 
I>ouglu8. In all tliat tbert' is a diirfriMict' iK-twc-on yon and him, I 
niulersUuul hi- is sincerel}' for yon, and more wisi-ly for yon than 
yon art' for yonrsi-lvos. I will try to diMnonstrate that proposition. 
I'ndi'rstand, now, I say that I hclicvc lu* is as sincerely for yon, 
and more wisely for j'oii, than you are for yourselves. 

What d<» you want more than anything else, to make sneeessful 
your virws of slavery, — to advartee the outspread of it, and to 
secure and perpetuate the nationalit}' of it? What do you want 
more than anything else? What is needed ah.solutely? What is 
indispensable to you? Why! if I may lie allowed to answer the 
question, it is to retain a hold up(jn the North, — it is to retain sup- 
port and strength from the Free States. If j'ou can get this 
support and strength from the Free States, you can succeed. If 
you do not get this sup[)ort and this strength from the Free States, 
you are in the minority, and you are lii'ateii at once. 

If that proposition be admitted, — and it is undtiuahle, — then 
the next thing I say to you is, that Douglas, of all the men in this 
nation, is the only man that alfords you any hold upon the Free 
States; that no other man can give you an}- strength in the Free 
States. This being so, if j'ou doubt the other branch of the propo- 
sition, whether he is for you, — whether he is really for you, as I 
have expressed it, — I propose asking your attention for a while to 
a few facts. 

The issue between you and me, understand, is, that I think 
slavery is wrong, and ought not to be outspread; and you think 
it IS right, and ought U) be extended and perpetuated. [A voice. 
••<)h. Lord."] That is my Kcntiukian 1 am talking t(t now. 

I now proceed to try to show you that Douglas is as sincerely 
for you and more wi.sely for you than you are for yourselves. 

In the lirst place, we know tliat in a government lik*- this, in a 
government of the people, where the voice of all the men of ilie 
country, substantially, enters into the execution — or admini-tra 
tion, ratlu'r — of the government, — in such a government, what 
lies at the bottom of all of it, is public opinion. I l.-iy down the 
proiK)sition, that Judge Douglas is not only the man thai promises 
you in advance a hold upon the North, and support in the North, 
but that he constantly moulds pnltlie opinion to your ends; that in 
every possil)le way he can. he constantly moulds the puitlic opinion 
of the N<irth to vourends; and if there arc a few tliin<:s in which 



CINCINNATI, OHIO. SEPTEMBER 17, m^. 487 

lie seems to be against you, — a few things which he says, that ap- 
pear to be against you, and a few that he forbears to say which you 
would like to have him say,— you ought to remember that the say- 
ing of the one, or tlie forbearing to say the other, wouhl lose his 
hold upon the North, and, by consequence, would lose his cnpacity 
to serve you. 

Upon this subject of moulding public opinion I call your atten- 
tion to the fact — for a well-established fact it is — that the Judge 
never says your institution of slavery is wrong; he never says it is 
right, to be sure, but he never says it is wrong. There is not a 
public man n the United States, I believe, with the exception of 
Senator Douglas, who has not, at some time in his life, declared his 
opinion whether the thing is right or wrong; but Senator Douglas 
never declares it is wrong. He leaves himself at perfect lil)erty to 
do all in your favor which he would be hindered from doing if he 
were to declare the thing to be wrong. On the contrary, he takes 
all the chances that he has for inveigling the sentiment of the 
North, o[)posed to slavery, into your support, by never saying it is 
right. This you ought to set down to his credit. You ought to 
give him full credit for this much, little though it be, in comparison 
to the whole which he does for you. 

Some other things I will ask your attention to. He said upon 
the floor of the United States Senate, and he has repeated it, as I 
understand, a great many times, that he does not care whether 
slavery is "voted up or voted down." This again shows you, or 
ought to show 3'ou, if 30U would reason upon it, that he does not 
believe it to be wrong; for a man may say, when he sees nothing 
wrong in a thing, that he does not care whether it be voted up or 
voted down; but no man can logically say that he cares not whether 
a thing goes up or goes down, which to him appears to be wrong. 
You therefore have a demonstration in this that to Judge Douglas's 
mind your favorite institution, which you would have spread out 
and made perpetual, is no wrong. 

DOUGLASS LINE BETWEEN SLAVERY AND FREEDOM. 

Another thing he tells you, in a speech made at Memphis, in 
Tennessee, shortly after the canvass in Illinois, last year. He there 
distinctly told the people that there was a "line drawn by the 
Almighty across this continent, on the one side of which the soil 
must always be cultivated by slaves;" that he did not pretend to 
know exactly where that line was, but that there was such a line. I 



188 SPEECH <»F LINCOLN. 

want to !isk your attention to that proposition again: that there is 
one portion of this continent where the Ahnij^lity has designee! the 
soil shall always be cultivated l»y slaves; that its being cultivated 
by slavi's at that place is right; that it has the direct sympathy and 
authority of the Almighty. 

^Vheuever you can get these Northern audiences to ad(>i)l the 
o]>inion that slavery is right on the other side of the Ohio; wheni'vcr 
you can get them, in pursuance of Douglass views, to adopt that 
sentiment, the}' will very readily make the other argument, which 
is perfectly logical, that that which is right on that side of the Ohio 
cannot be wrong on this, and that if you have that property on tiiat 
side of the Ohio, under the seal and stamp of the Almighty, when 
l»y any means it escapes over here it is wrong to have constitutions 
and laws " to devil "' you about it. 

So Douglas is moulding the public opinion of the North, first 
U) say that the thing is right in your State over the Ohio River, 
and hence to say that that which is right there is not wrong here, 
and that all laws and constitutions here, recognizing it as being 
wrong, arc themselves wrong, and ought to be re|)ealed and abro- 
gated. He will ti'U you, men of Ohio, that if you choose here 
to have laws against slaver}', it is in conformit}' to the idea that 
your climate is not suited to it, that your climate is not suited 
to slave labor, and therefore you have constitutions ami laws 
against it. 

Let us attend to that argument for a little while, and see if it 
be sountl. You do not raise sugar-cane (exci-pt the new-fashioned 
sugarcane, and you wont raise that long), but they do raise it in 
Louisiana. You don't raise it in Ohio, because you can't raise it 
profitably, because the climate do n't suit it. They do raise it in 
Louisiana, because there it is profitable. Now, Douglas will tell 
you that is precisely the slaver}' question: that tiiey do have slaves 
there, becau.se they arc profitable; and you don't have them here, 
because they are not prolilable. If that is so, then it leails to deal- 
ing with the one precisely as with the other. Is there, then, any- 
thing in the Constitution or laws of Ohio against raising sugar-cane? 
Have you found it necessary to put any such provision in your law? 
Surely not! No man desires to rai.se sugar-cane in Ohio; but if any 
man di<l desire to do so, you would say it was a tyrannical law that 
forbids his doing so: and whenever you shall agree with Douglas, 
whenever y«»ur minds are l»rought to adopt his argument, as surely 
you will have reai-hed the conclusion that although slavery is not 



CINCINNATI, OHIO, SEPTEMBER 17, \md. 189 

profitable in Ohio, if any man wants it, it is wrong to liiin not to 
let him have it. 

In this matter Judge Douglas is preparhig the public minil for 
you of Kentucky to make perpetual that good thing in your estima- 
tion, about which you and I differ. 

In this connection, let me ask your attention to another thing. 
I believe it is safe to assert that five years ago no living man had 
expressed the opinion that the negro had no sliare in the Declaration 
of Independence. Let me state that again : Five years ago no living 
man had expressed the opinion that the negro had no share in the 
Declaration of Independence. If there is in this large audience any 
man who e\i'r knew of that opinion being put upon paper as much 
as five years ago, I will be obliged to him now or at a subsequent 
time to show it. 

If that be true I wish you then to note the next fact: that 
within the space of five years Senator Douglas, in the argument of 
this question, has got his entire party, so far as I know, without 
exception, to join in saying that the negro has no share in the 
Declaration of Independence. If there be now in all these United 
States one Douglas man that does not say this, I have been unable 
upon any occasion to scare hiin up. Now, if none of j'ou said this 
five years ago, and all of j^ou say it now, that is a matter that you 
Kentuckians ought to note. That is a vast change in the Northern 
public sentiment upon that question. 

Of what tendency is that change? The tendency of that change is 
to bring the public mind to the conclusion that when men are spoken 
of, the negro is not meant; that when negroes are spcjkcn of, brutes 
alone are contemplated. That change in public sentiment has 
already degraded the black man in the estimation of Douglas and 
his followers from the condition of a man of some sort, and assigned 
him to the condition of a brute. Now, you Kentuckians ought to 
give Douglas credit f(5r this. That is the largest possible stride that 
can be made in regard to the perpetuation of your thing of slavery. 

A Voice. — Speak to Ohio men, and not to Kentuckians! 

3Ir. Lincoln. — I beg permission to speak as I please. 

In Kentucky perhaps, in many of the Slave States certainly, 
you are trying to establish the rightfulness of slavery by reference 
to the Bible. You are trying to show that slavery existed in the 
Bible times by divine ordinance. Now, Douglas is wiser than you, 
for your own benefit, upon that subject. Douglas knows that when- 
ever you establish that slavery was right by the Bible, it will occur 



ItU) SPEECH OF LINCOLN. 

that that slavery was the slavery of the white man, of men with- 
out reft-rt'iift' lu color; uiul In* knows vi-ry well tli:it y««ii may eiitcr- 
tain lliat idea in Kentucky as much as you please, hut you will 
never win any Northern support upon it. He makes a wiser arjiu- 
meiit for you: he makes the ar<rument that the slavery (tf the ihtcic 
man, the slavery of the man who lias a skin of a <liirerent color 
from your own, is right. He therehy brings to your support Xortli- 
ern voters who could not for a moment be brought by your own 
argument of the Hible-right of slavery. Will you not give him 
credit for that? Will you not say that in this matter In- is more 
wisely for you than you are for yourselves? 

Now, having established with his entire party this doctrine, hav- 
ing been entin-ly successful in that branch of his elforts in your he- 
half, he is ready for anotlier. 

'• Tin:. NKGUo AND THE CROCODILE. " 

At this same meeting at Memphis he declared that while in all 
contests between the negro and the white man he was for the white 
man; l»ut that in all cpiestions between the negro and the crocodile he 
was for the negro. He did not make that declaration accidt-ntally 
at Memphis. He made it a great many times in the canvass in 
Hliiujis last year (though I don't know that it was reported in any 
of his speeches there), but he frequently made it. I believe he 
repeated it at Columbus, and I should not wonder if he repeated it 
here. It is, then, a deliberate wa}' of expressing himself upon that 
subject. It is a matter of mature deliberation with him thus to 
express himself upon that point of his case. It therefore requires 
some deliberate attention. 

The first inference seems to ho that if you do not enslave the 
negro, you are wronging the wiiitc man in some way or other, and 
that whoever is oppo.sed to the negro being enslaved, is, in some 
way or other, against the white man. Is not that a falsehood? If 
there was a necessary conllict between the white man and the negro, 
I should be for the white man as niiich as Judge Douglas; but I say 
there is no such necessary conllict. I say that there is room enough 
f«»r us all to be free, and that it not oidy does not wrong the white 
ni:.n that the ne^iro HJioiild he free, hilt it positively wrongs the 
mass of the white men that the negro should be enslaved; that the 
mass of white men are really injured by the effects of slave labor iu 
the vicinity of the fields of their own labor. 



CINCINNATI. OHIO, SEPTEIIHER 17, IS.',!). 4;)] 

])ut I do not desire to dwell upon this branch of the (luestioii 
more than to say that this assumption of his is false, and I do hope 
tliat that fallacy will not long prevail in the minds (»f intelligent 
wiiite men. At all events, you ought to thank Judge Douglas for 
it; it is for your benefit it is made. 

The other branch of it is, that in a struggle between the negro 
and the crocodile, he is for the negro. Well, I don't know that 
there is any struggle between the negro and the crocodile, either. 
I suppose that if a crocodile (or, as we old Ohio Kiver boatmen used 
to call them, alligators) should come across a white man, he would 
kill him if he could, and so he would a negro. But what, at last, 
is this proposition? I believe that it is a sort of proposition in pro- 
portion, which may be stated thus: "As the negro is to tiie white 
man, so is the crocodile to the negro; and as the negro ma}- right- 
fully treat the crocodile as a beast or reptile, so the white man may 
rightfully treat the negro as a beast or a reptile." Tiiat is really 
the " knip " of all that argument of his. 

Now, my brother Kentuckians, who believe in this, you ought to 
thank Judge Douglas for having put that in a much more taking 
wa)' than any of yourselves have done. 

THE AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE. 

Again, jyonglsLs's gi-eat pnnciple, "Popular Sovereignty, " as he 
calls it, gives 5'ou, by natural consequence, the revival of the slave 
trade whenever you want it. If you question this, listen awhile, 
consider awhile what I shall advance in support of that proposition. 

He says that it is the sacred right of the man who goes into the 
Territories to have slavery if he wants it. Grant that for argu- 
ment's sake. Is it not the sacred right of the man who do n't go 
there equally to buy slaves in Africa, if he wants them? Can you 
point out (he difference? The man who goes into the Territories of 
Kansas and Nebraska, or any other new Territory, with the sacred 
right of taking a slave there which belongs to him, would certainly 
have no more right to take one there than I would, who own no 
slave, but who would desire to buy one and take him there. You 
will not say — you, the friends of Judge Douglas — but that the 
man who does not own a slave has an equal right to buy one and 
take him to the Territory as the other does? 

A Voi'ce. I want to ask a question. Don't foreign nations in- 
terfere with the slave trade? 



j'.t2 SPEECH OF LlNruLN, 

.1//-. Lincoln. — Well! 1 understand it to lie :i principle of Demo- 
ciacv to whip forei<xn nations wlu-ncver llit-y interfere with us. 

.1 VinW. — 1 only asktd for information. I am a He))ublican 
myself. 

.)//•. Lintoln. — You antl 1 will he on tin- liesl It-rms in the world, 
hut I do not wish to l»e diverted from the point I was tryinji to 
press. 

I say that Douglas's Popular Sovereignty, establishing his sacred 
right in the people, if you please, if carried to its logical conclusion 
gives ecjually the sacred right to the people of the States or the 
Territories themselves to buy slaves wherever they can bu}' them 
heaiK'st; and if any man can show a distinction, I should like to 
hear him try it. If any man can show how the people of Kansas 
have a better right to slaves, because they want them, than the 
people of Georgia have to buy them in Africa, I want him to do it. 
1 think it cannot lie done. If it is " Popular Sovereignly " for the 
people to have slaves Itecause they want them, it is l*opular Sover- 
eignty for them to buy them in Africa because the}' desire to 
do so. 

I know that Douglas has recently made a little effort, ^ not 
seeming to notice that he had a dillerent theory, — has made an 
etfort to get rid of that, lie has written a letter, addressed to 
somebod}', I believe, who resides in Iowa, declaring his opposition 
to the repeal of the laws that i)rohil)it the African slave trade. He 
Itases his opposition to such repeal ujjon the ground that these laws 
are themselves one of the compromises of the Constitution of the 
I'nited States. Now, it would Ije very interesting to see Judge 
Douglas or any of his friends turn to the Constitution of the United 
Stiites and point out that compromise, to show where there is any 
compromise in the Constitution, or provision in the Constitution, 
express or implied, by which the administrators of that Constitution 
are under any obligation to repeal the African slave trade. I know, 
or at least I think I know, that the framers of that Constitution 
did expect that the African slave trade would be abolished at the 
end of twenty years, to which time their proliiliilion against its being 
altoiisliefl extended. I think tiiere is abundant eoiiteniporaneous 
history to siiow that the framers of the Constitution expeele<l it 
to b(! abolished. Hut while they so expected, they gave nothing 
for that expecUition, and they put no provision in the Constitu- 
tion recjuiring it should be ho abolished. The migration or impor- 
tation of such i»ersons as the States shall see lit to admit shall not 



CINCINNATI, OHIO, SEPTEMBER 17, IS.3!). 41)3 

be prohibited, l)ut a certain tax iniglit be levied upon .such impor- 
tation. 

But what was to be done after that time? The Constitution is 
as silent about that as it is silent, personally, about myself. There 
is absolutely nothing in it about that sul)ject; there i.s only the ex- 
pectation of the framers of the Constitution that the slave-trade 
would be abolished at the end of that time; and they expected it 
would be abolished, owing to public sentiment, l)efore that time; 
and they put that provision in, in order that it should not be abol- 
ished before that time, for reasons which I suppose they thought to 
be sound ones, but which I will not now try to enumerate before you. 

But while they expected the slave trade would be abolished at 
that time, they expected that the spread of slavery into the new 
Territories should also be restricted. It is as easy to prove that 
the framers of the Constitution of the United States expected that 
slavery should be prohibited from extending into the new Territories, 
as it is to prove that it was expected that the slave trade should be 
abolished. Both these things were expected. One was no more ex- 
pected than the other, and one was no more a compromise of the 
Constitution than the other. There was nothing said in the Consti- 
tution in regard to the spread of slavery into the Territor}'. I grant 
that; but there was something \evy important said about it by the 
same generation of men in the adoption of the old Ordinance of '87, 
through the influence of which 30U here in Ohio, our noighiiors in 
Indiana, we in Illinois, our neighbors in Michigan and Wisconsin, 
are happy, prosperous, teeming millions of free men. That genera- 
tion of men, though not to the full extent members of the Conven- 
tion that framed the Constitution, were to some extent members of 
that Convention, holding seats at the same time in one body and' the 
other, so that if there was any compromise on either of these sub- 
jects, the strong evidence is that that compromise was in favor of 
the restriction of slavery from the new Territories. 

But Douglas says that he is unalterably opposed to the repeal of 
those laws; because, in his view, it is a compromise of the Consti- 
tution. You Kentuckians, no doubt, are somewhat offended with 
that ! You ought not to be ! You ought to be patient ! You 
ought to know that if he said less than that, he would lose the 
power of " lugging " the Northern States to your support. Really, 
what you would push him to do would take from him his entire 
povver to serve you. And you ought to remember how long, by 
precedent, Judge Douglas holds himself obliged t<> stick by compro- 



494 SPP:ECH of LINCOLN. 

mist'8. You ought to remeuiln'r that by the time you yourselves 
think you ure ready to inaugurate measures for tiie revival of the 
African shive trade, that sullieient time will have arrived, by pre- 
ei'dent, for Judge l)ouglas to break tlirougli that conipnjniise. He 
says now nothing more strong than he said in lS-l!t when he de- 
clared in fa v(»r of the Missouri Compromise, — that precisely four 
years and a (piarter after he declared that Compntinise to be a 
sacrc<l thing, which "no ruthless hand would ever dare to touch," 
he iiiniself brought forward the measure ruthlessly to destroy it. 
li\ a mere calculation of time it will only be four years more until 
he is ready to take back his profession about the sacredness of the 
Compromise aliolishing the slave trade. Precisely as soon as you are 
ready to have his services in that direction, by fair calculation, you 
may be sure of having them. 

CONTROLLINO SL.WERY. 

But you remember and set down to Judge Douglas's debt or dis- 
credit, that he, last year, said the people of Territories can, in spite 
of the Dred Scott decision, exclude your slaves from those Terri- 
tories; that he declared, by " unfriendly legislation " the extension 
of your propert}' into the new Territories may be cut olF, in the 
teeth of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. 

He assumed that position at Frceport on the 27th of August, 
1858. He said that the people of the Territories can exclude slav- 
ery, in so many w«)rds. You ought, however, to hear in mind that 
he has never said it since. You may hunt in every speech that he 
has since maile, and he has never usi'd that expression once. lie 
lias never seeinid to notice that lie is stating his views dilli-r- 
eillly from what lie did then; l)Ut l»y some sort of accident, he has 
always really stated it ditferently. He has always since tlien i\v- 
clared that " the Constitution does not carry slavery into the Terri- 
tories of the United States beyond the power of the ijei)ple legally 
to control it as other property.'' Now, there is a tlitlerence in the 
hmguage used upon that former occasion and in this latter day. 
There ma}' or may not be a ditrerence in the meaning, but it is worth 
while considering whether there is not also a tliirereuce in meaning. 

What is it to exclude': ^Vhy, it is to drive it out. It is in .some 
way to put it out of the Territory. It is to force it across the line, 
or change its charact«'r so that, as |troperty. it is out of existence. 
IJut what is the controlling of it "as other pro|ierty ? Is con- 
Irulling it as other property the same thing as destroying it, or driv- 



CINCINNATI, OHIO, SEPTEMBER 1?, 18o!J. 4().-, 

ing it away? I should think not. I should think tiie controirmjr of 
it as other property would be just about what you in Kentucky 
should want. I understand the controlling of property means the 
controlling of it for the benefit of the owner of it. While I iiave no 
doubt the Supreme Court of the United States would say "God 
speed " to any of the Territorial Legislatures that should thus con- 
trol slave property, they would sing quite a different tune, if by the 
pretense of controlling it, they were to undertake to pass laws 
which virtually excluded it, — and that upon a very well known 
principle to all lawyers, that what a Legislature cannot directly do, 
it cannot do by indirection; that as the Legislature has not the 
power to drive slaves out, they have no power, by indirection, by 
tax, or by imposing burdens in any way on that property, to effect 
the same end, and that any attempt to do so would be held by the 
Dred Scott court unconstitutional. 

DougUis is not willing to stand by his first proposition that they 
can exclude it, because we have seen that that proposition amounts 
to nothing more nor less than the naked absurdity that you may 
lawfully drive out that which has a lawful right to remain. He ad- 
mitted at first that the slave might be lawfully taken into the Terri- 
tories under the Constitution of the United States, and yet asserted 
that he might be lawfully driven out. That being the proposition, it 
is the absurdity I have stated. He is not willing to stand in the face 
of that direct, naked, and impudent absurdity; he has, therefore, 
modified his language into that of being ' ' controlled as otlicr property. " 

The Kentuckians don't like this in Douglas! I will tell you 
where it will go. He now swears by the court. He was once a 
leading man in Illinois to break down a court, because it had made 
a decision he did not like. But he now not only swears by the 
court, the courts having got to working for you, but he denounces 
all men that do not swear by the courts, as unpatriotic, as bad citi- 
zens. When one of these acts of unfriendly legislation shall impose 
such heavy burdens as to, in effect, destroy' property in slaves iu a 
Territory, and show plainly enough that there can be no mistake in 
the purpose of the Legislature to make them so burdensome, this same 
Supreme Court will decide that law to be unconstitutional, and he 
will be ready to say for your benefit, "I swear by the court; I give 
it up," and while that is going on he has been getting all his men to 
swear by the courts, and to give it up with him. In this again he 
serves you faithfully, and, as I say, more wisely than you serve 
yourselves. 



\[U] Sl'i:i:( II OF I.INCOLN. 

A^niii: 1 have allmU'd in llii- hej^inning of these remarks to tlir 
fatt thai .ludjre I)ou<;his has made great complaint of my haviiis: 
expressed the opiniou that this (loverument " eanuot eiuhire perma- 
nently, lialf Slave and half Free." He has complained of Seward 
for nsing tlilFfrent languaj^e, antl declaring that there is an " irre- 
pressible conflict " between the principles of free and slave lal)or. 
[A voice: lie says it is not original with Seward. That is original 
with Linccdn.] I will attend to that immediately, sir. Since that 
time, Hickman of I'ennsylvania expressed the same sentiment. He 
has never denounced Mr. Hickman: why? There is a little chance, 
notwithstanding that opinion in the mouth of Hickman, that he 
may yet be a Douglas man. That is the ditference! It is not uu- 
I)atriotic to hold that opinion if a man is a Douglas man. 

JJut neither I, nor Seward, nor Hickman is entitled to the en- 
viahU' or unenviable distinction of having first expressed that iilea. 
That same idea was expressed by the Richmond Eiiqnlnr in Vir- 
ginia, in 1856, — quite two years before it was expressed by the 
first of us. And while Douglas was pluming himself that in his 
conflict with my huml)le self, last year, he had "squelched out" 
that fatal heresy, as he delighted to call it, and had suggested that 
if he only had had a chance to be in New York and meet Seward he 
would have "squelched" it there also, it never occurred to him to 
breathe a word against l^ryor. I don't think that you can discover 
that Douglas ever talked of going to Virginia to "sijuelch" out 
that idea there. No. More than that. That same Roger A. Pryor 
was brought to Washington City and made the editor of the yvo- 
rxcrfliiiir Doughis paper, after making use of that exi)ression, which, 
in us, is so unpatriotic and heretical. From all this, my K»iitiuky 
friends may see that this opinion is heretical in his view only wiu-n 
it is expressed by men suspected of a desire that the country shall 
all become free, and not when expressed l)y those fairly known to 
entertain the desire that the whole country shall become slave. 
When expressed by that class of men, it is in nowise offensive to 
him. In this again, my friends of Kentucky, you li:ivc Judge 
Douglas with you. 

There is another rea.son why you Southern people ougiit to nomi- 
nate Dougl:is at your Convention at Charleston. That reason is 
the woinlerfid capacity of the man, -the jtower hi' has of doing 
what would seem to be impo8sil)Ie. Ja'I me call your attention to 
one of these apparently impo.ssibie things. 

l>oiiglas had three or four very distinguished men of the most 
extn-m*' anti-slavery views of any men in the Kepuliiiean party ex- 



CINCINNATI, OHIO, SEPTEMBER 17, ISoO. 497 

pressing their desire for his re-election to the Senate last year. 
That woukl, of itself, have seemed to be a little wonderful; but 
that wonder is heightened when we see that Wise of Virginia, a 
man exactly opposed to them, a man who believes in the divine 
right of slavery, was also expressing his desire that Douglas should 
be re-elected; that another man that may be said to be kindred to 
^Yise, Mr. Breckinridge, the Vice-President, and of your own State, 
was also agreeing with the anti-slavery men in the North that Doug- 
las ought to be re-elected. Still, to heighten the wonder, a senator 
from Kentucky, whom I have always loved with an alfection as tender 
and endearing as I have ever loved any man; who was opposed to 
the anti-slavery men for reasons which seemed suflicient to him, and 
equally opposed to Wise and Breckinridge, was writing letters into 
Illinois to secure the re-election of Douglas. 

Now, that all these conflicting elements should be l)rought, while 
at daggers' points with one another, to support him, is a feat that 
is worthy for you to note and consider. It is quite probable that 
each of these classes of men thought, b}' the re-election of Douglas, 
their peculiar views would gain something: it is probaljle that the 
anti-slavery men thought their views would gain something; that 
Wise and Breckinridge thought so too, as regards their opinions; that 
Mr. Crittenden thought that his views would gain something, although 
he was opposed to both these other men. It is probalile that each and 
all of them thought that they were using Douglas; and it is yet an un- 
solved problem whether he was not using them all. If he was, 
then it is for you to consider whether that power to perform won- 
ders is one for you lightly to throw away. 

AVHAT EACH SIDE PROPOSED TO DO. 

There is one other thing that I will say to you, in this relation. 
It is but my opinion, I give it to you without a fee. It is my opin- 
ion that it is for you to take him or be defeated ; and that if you 
do take him you may be beaten. You will surely be beaten if you 
do not take him. We, the Ilepublicans and others forming the op- 
position of the country, intend to "stand by our guns," to be pa- 
tient and firm, and in the long run to beat you, whether j-ou take 
him or not. We know that before we fairly beat you, we have to 
beat you both together. We know that you are " all of a feather," 
and that we have to beat you all together, and we expect to do it. 
We do n't intend to be very impatient about it. We mean to be as 
deliberate and calm about it as it is possible to be, but as firm and 

33 



498 SPEECH OF LINCOLN, 

ri'solvcd as it is possible for men to be. When we do as we say, — 
beat you, — you perbaps want to know what we will dcj with you. 

I will tell you, so far as I am authorized to speak for the oppo- 
sition, what we mean to do with you. We mean to treat you, as 
near as we possibly can, as Washington, Jefferson, and Madison 
treated you. We mean to leave you alone, and in no way to inter- 
fere with your institution; to al)ide by all and every compromise of 
the Constitution, and, in a word, coming back to the original propo- 
sition, to treat you, so far as degenerated men (if we have degen- 
erated) may, according to the examples of those noble fathers, — 
Washington, Jefferson, and Madison. We mean to remember that you 
are as good as we; that there is no difference between us other than 
the dilTerence of circumsUmces. We mean to recognize and bear in 
mind always that you have as good hearts in N'our bosoms as other peo- 
ple, or as we claim to have, and treat you accordingly. We mean to 
marry your girls when we have a chance, — the white ones I mean ; and 
I have the honor to inform you that I once did have a chance in 
that way. 

I have told 3'ou what we mean to do. T want to know, now, 
when that thing taki'S place, what do you mean to do. I often hear 
it intimated that you mean to divide the Union whenever a Repub- 
lican, or anything like it, is elected President of the United States. 
[A voice: That is so.] " That is so," one of them says; I wonder 
if he is a Kentuckian? [A voice: He is a Douglas man.] Well, 
then, I want to know what you are going to do with your half of it? 
Are you going to split the Ohio down through, and push your half 
off a piece? Or are you going to keep it right alongside of us 
outrageous fellows ? Or are you going to build up a wall some 
way between your country and ours, by which that movable 
property of yours can't come over here any more, to the danger t)f 
your losing it? Do you think you can better yourselves, on tiiat 
8ubje«'t, by leaving us here under no ol)ligation whatever to return 
those specimens of your moveable property that come hither? 

You liave divided the Union because we would not do right with 
you, as you think, upon that subject; when we cease to be under 
obligations to do anything for you, how much better olf do you 
think you will be? Will you make war upon us and kill us all? 
Why, gentlemen, I think you are as gallant ami as brave men as 
live; that you can light as bravely in a good can.se, man for man, 
as any other people living; that you h.ive shown yourselves capable 
of this upon various occasions; but, man i\H' man, you are not 



CINCINNATI, OHIO, SEPTEMBER 17, la-JO. 499 

better than we are, and there are not so many of you as there are 
of us. You will never make much of a hand at whipping us. If 
we were fewer in numbers than you, I think that you could whip us; 
if we were equal, it would likely be a drawn battle; but, being infe- 
rior in numbers, you will make nothing by attempting to master us. 
But perhaps I have addressed myself as long, or longer, to the 
Kentuekians than I ouglit to have done, inasmuch as I have said 
that whatever course you take we intend in the end to beat you. I 
propose to address a few remarks to our friends, by way of discuss- 
ing with them the best means of keeping tliat promise that I have 
in good faith made. 

THE FORCE OF THE ORDINANCE OF '87. 

It may appear a little episodical for me to mention the topic of 
which I shall speak now. It is a favorite proposition of Douglas's 
that the interference of the General Government, through the Ordi- 
nance of '87, or through any other act of the General Government, 
never has made, nor ever can make a Free State; that the Ordinance 
of "87 did not make Free States of Ohio, Indiana, or Illinois. That 
these States are free upon his "great principle" of Popular Sover- 
eignty, because the people of those several States have chosen to 
make them so. At Columbus, and probably here, he undertook to 
compliment the people that they themselves have made the State 
of Ohio free, and that the Ordinance of '87 was not entitled in any 
degree to divide the honor with them. I have no doubt that the 
people of the State of Ohio did make her free according to their 
own will and judgment, but let the facts be remembered. 

In 1802, I believe it was, you made your first constitution, 
with the clause prohibiting slavery, and you did it, I suppose, very 
nearly unanimously; but you should bear in mind that you — speak- 
ing of you as one people — that you did so unembarrassed by the 
actual presence of the institution amongst 3'ou ; that you made it a 
Free State, not with the embarrassment upon you of already having 
among you many slaves, which if they had been here, and j'ou had 
sought to make a Free State, you would not know what to do with. 
If they had been among you, embarrassing difficulties, most prob- 
ably, would have induced you to tolerate a slave constitution instead 
of a free one, as indeed these very difficulties have constrained every 
people on this continent who have adopted slavery. 

Pray what was it that made you free? What kept you free? 
Did you not find your country free when you came to decide that 



;')(»(» Sl'KKc II OF LINCOLN. 

Oliio sliould ho :i Free State? It is important to inquire by what 
reason you found it so. Let us take an illustration between the 
States of Ohio and Kentucky. Kentucky is separated by this River 
Ohio, not a niilc wide. A portion of Kentucky, by reison of the 
course of the Ohio, is further north than this portion of Ohio, in 
which we now stand. Kentucky is entirely covered with slavery; 
Ohio is entirely free from it. What made that (lilference? Was 
it climate? No A portion of Kentucky was further north than 
this portion of Ohio. Was it soil? No. There is nothing in the 
soil of the one more favorable to slave lajjor than the other. It 
was nt>t climate or soil that caused one side of the line to be en- 
tirely covered with slavery, and the other side free of it. What 
was it? Study over it. Tell us, if you can, in all the range of 
conjecture, if there be anything 30U can conceive of that made that 
dilb'rciice, other than that there was no law of any sort keeping it 
out of Kentucky, while the Ordinance of '87 kept it out of Ohio. 
If there is any other reason than this, I confess that it is wholly 
beyond my |)ower to conceive of it. This, then, I otTer to combat 
— the idea that that Ordinance has never made any State free. 

I do n't stop at this illustration. I come to the State of Indi- 
ana; and what I have said as between Kentucky and Ohio, I repeat 
as between Indiana and Kentucky: it is equally applicable. One 
additional argument is applicable also to Indiana. In her Terri- 
torial condition she more than once petitioned Congress to abrogate 
the Ordinance entirely, or at least so far as to suspend its operation 
for a time, in order that they should exercise the " Popular Sover- 
eignty " of having slaves if they wanted them. The men then 
controlling the General Government, imitating the men of the 
licvolution, refused Indiana that i)rivilege. And so we have the 
evitlcnce that Indiana supposed she could have slaves, if it were 
not for that Ordinance; that she besought Congress to put that 
barrier out of the way; that Congress refused to do so; and it all 
ended at last in Indiana being a Free State. Tell me not then that 
the Ordinance of '87 had nothing to do with making Indiana a Free 
State, when we find some men chafing against, and only restrained 
by, that barrier. 

Come down again to our State of Illinois. The great Northwest 
Territory, including Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wis- 
consin, was acquired first, I believe, by tbo British Government, 
in part, at least, from the French. Before the cstMblishinent of our 
independence it l)ecomes u part of \'irginia, enabling Virginia after- 



CINCINNATI, OHIO, SEPTEMBP]R 17, ISfi!). 501 

ward to transfer it to the General Government. There were French 
settlements in what is now Illinois, and at the same time there were 
French settlements in what is now Missouri,— in the tract of coun- 
try that was not purchased till about 1803. In these Frencii 
settlements negro slavery had existed for many years, — perhaps 
more tlian a hundred, if not as much as two hundred years, — at 
Kaskaskia, in Illinois, and at St. Genevieve, or Cape Girardeau, 
perhaps, in Missouri. The number of slaves was not very great, 
but there was about the same number in "each place. They were 
there when we acquired the Territory. There was no effort made 
to break up the relation of master and slave, and even the Ordi- 
nance of 1787 was not so enforced as to destroy that slavery in 
Illinois; nor did the Ordinance apply to Missouri at all. 

What I want to ask your attention to, at this point, is that 
Illinois and Missouri came into the Union about the same time, 
Illinois in the latter part of 1818, and Missouri, after a struggle, 
I believe sometime in 1820. They had been lllling up with Ameri- 
can people about the same period of time; their progress enabling 
them to come into the Union about the same time. At the end of 
that ten years, in which they had been so preparing (for it was 
about that period of time), the number of slaves in Illinois had 
actually decreased; while in Missouri, beginning with very few, 
at the end of that ten years there were about ten thousand. This 
being so, and it being remembered that Missouri and Illinois are, 
to a certain extent, in the same parallel of latitude; that the north- 
ern half of Missouri and the southern half of Illinois are in the 
same parallel of latitude, so that climate would have the same 
effect upon one as upon the other, and that in the soil there is no 
material difference so far as bears upon the question of slavery 
being settled upon one or the other, — there being none of those 
natural causes to produce a difference in filling them, and yet there 
beuig a broad difference in their filling up, we are led again to in- 
quire what was the cause of that difference. 

It is most natural to say that in Missouri there was no law to 
keep that country from filling up with slaves, while in Illinois there 
was the Ordinance of "87. The Ordinance being there, slavery de- 
creased during that ten years; the Ordinance not being in the other, 
it increased from a few to ten thousand. Can anybody doubt the 
reason of the difference? 

I think all these facts most abundantly prove that ray friend 
Judge Douglas's proposition, that the Ordinance of '87, or the na- 



502 SPEECH ()[■' LINCOLN, 

tioiml restriction t>f slavery, never had ii tendency to make a Free 
State, is a fallacy, — a proposition without the shadow or substance 
of truth about it. 

l)on<ilas sometimes says that all the States (and it is a part of 
this same proposition I have been discussing) that have become free 
have become so upon his " great principle;" that the State of Illi- 
nois itself came into the Union as a Slave State, and that the peo- 
ple, upon the "great principle" of Popular Sovereignty, have since 
made it a Free State. Allow me but a little while to state to you 
what facts there are to justify him in saying tlial Illinois came iuto 
the Union as a Slave State. 

I have mentioned to you that there were a few old French slaves 
there. They numl)ered, 1 think, one or two hundred. Besides that, 
there had been a Territorial law for indenturing black persons. 
Under that law, in violation of the Ordinance of '87, but without 
any enforcement of the Ordinance to overthrow the s^'stem, there 
had been a small number of slaves introduced as indentured persons. 
Owing to this, the clause for tiie prohibition of slavery was slightl}' 
moditied. Instead of running like yours, that neither slavery nor 
involuntary servitude, except for crime, of which tlie part}- shall 
have ix'en duly convicted, should exist in the State, they said that 
neither slavery nor involuntary servitude should thereafter be intro- 
duced, and that the children of indentured servants should be boru 
free; and nothing was said about the few old French slaves. Out 
of this fact, that the clause for prohibiting slaver}' was modified 
liecause of the actual presence of it, Douglas asserts again and again 
that Illinois came into the Union as a Slave State. How far the 
facts sustain the conclusion that he draws, it is for intelligent and 
impartial men to decide. I leave it with you, with these remarks, 
worthy of being remembered, that that little thing, those few inden- 
tured servants being there, was of itself sutHcient to modify a 
constitution made })y a people ardently desiring to have a free con- 
stitution; showing the power of the actual presence of the institution 
of slavj-ry to prevent any people, however anxious to make a Free 
State, from making it jjcrfectly so. 

I have been detaining you longer, perhaps, than I ought to do. 

I am in s<jme doubt whether to introduce another topic upon 
which I could talk awhile. [Cries of "Go on, ' and "Give us it."] 
It is this, then: Douglass Popular Sovereignty, as a principle, is 
simply this: If one man eliooses to make a slave of another man, 
neitiier that man nor anybody else has a right to olijeet. Apply it 



CINCINNATI, OHIO, SEPTEMBER 17, 1859. 503 

to government, as be seeks to appl}- it, and it is this: If, in a new 
Territory into wliicli a few people are beginning to enter for the pur- 
pose of making tiieir bomes, tbey choose to either exchide shivery 
from their limits, or to establish it there, however one or the other 
may affect the persons to be enslaved, or the infinitely greater num- 
ber of persons who are afterward to inhabit that Territory, or the 
other members of the family of communities of which they are 
but an incipient member, or the general head of the family of States 
as parent of all,— however their action may alfect one or the other 
of these, there is no power or right to interfere. That is Douglas's 
Popular Sovereignty applied. Now, I think that there is a real Popu- 
lar Sovereignty in the world. I think a definition of Popular Sover- 
eignt}', in the abstract, would be about this: that each man shall do 
precisely as he pleases with himself, and with all those things whicii 
exclusively concern him. Applied in government, this principle 
would be: that a general government shall do all tlio.se things which 
pertain to it, and all the local governments shall do precisely as the}' 
please in respect to those matters which exclusively concern them. 
Douglas looks upon slavery as so insignificant that the people 
must decide that question for themselves; and yet they are not fit to 
decide who shall be their governor, judge, or secretary, or who shall 
be any of their officers. These are vast national matters, in his 
estimation; but the little matter in his estimation is that of planting 
slavery there. That is purely of local interest, which nobody should 
be allowed to say a word about. 

CAPITAL AND LABOR. 

Labor is the great source from which nearly all, if not all, hu- 
man comforts and necessities are drawn. There is a difference in 
opinion about the elements of labor in society. Some men assume 
that there is a necessary connection between capital and labor, and 
that connection draws within it the whole of the labor of the com- 
munity. They assume that nobody works unless capital excites 
them to work. They begin next to consider what is the best way. 
They say there are but two ways: one is to hire men, and to allure 
them to labor by their consent; the other is to buy the men and 
drive them to it; and that is slavery. Having assumed that, they 
proceed to discuss the question of whether the laborers them- 
selves are better off in the condition of slaves or of hired laborers, 
and they usually decide that they are better off in the condition of 
slaves. 



5(1 J SPEECH <»F I.IN( ()LN, 

In the first place, I say tli;'.t the whole thiiijjj is a mistake. That 
there is ji cerUiin rehition l»etweeM eapital aiul hihor, 1 aihuit. That 
it il»»es exist, an«l ri<^htl'iilly exists, I thiiiiv is true. That men who 
are ia<Ui8trious, and sober, and honest in tiie pursuit of iUv'w own in- 
terests shouhl after a wiiih' aeeumuhite eajjital, and after that shoukl 
he alU)wed to enjoy it in peaee, and al.so, if they shouhl choose, 
when they liavc accumidati'il it, to use it to save themselves from 
actual lal)<)r, and hire other people to lahor for them, is rij^ht. In 
doinj; so they do not wrong the man they emplo}', for they find men 
who have not tiieir own land to work upon, or shops to work in, 
and who are benefited l)y working for others — hired laborers, receiv- 
ing their capital for it. Thus a few men, that own cai)ital, hire a few 
others, and these establish the relation of capittd and laljor right- 
fully. A relation of which I make no complaint. JJut I insist that 
that relation, after all, does not eml»race more tiian one-eighth of 
the labor of the country. ^1^ latst siv^n-clgJtths of the labor is dune 
xcithoiit rt'l<(fion to it. 

Take the State of Ohio. Out of eight bushels of wheat, seven 
are raised by those men who labor for themselves, aided by their 
boys grown to manhood, neither being hired nor hiring, but liter- 
ally lalxiring upon their own hook, asking no favor of capital, of 
hired laborer, or slave. That is the true condition of the larger 
portion of all the labor done in this community, or that should be 
the eonditif>n of labor in well-regulated communities of agricultur- 
ists. Thus much for that part of the subject. 

Again: The assumption that the slave is in a better condition 
than the hired laborer, includes the further assumption that he who 
is once a hired laborer always remains a hired laborer; that there 
is a certain class of men who remain through life in a dependent 
condition. Then they endeavor to point out that when they get 
old, they have no kind masters to take care of tlu'Ui, and that they 
fall dead in the traces, with the harness of actual labor up«)n their 
backs. In jjoint of fact that is a false assumption. There is no 
Buch thing as a man who is a hired laborer, of a necessity, always 
remaining in his early condition. The general rule is otherwise. 
I know it is so, and I will tell yon why. 

When at an early age, I was myself a hiri-il lal)orer. at twelve 
dollars per month; and therefore I do know that there is not always 
the necessity for actual labor beeause once tlu're was jjiopriety in 
being so. My Uii<lerstandin<,- of the hired laborer is this: A young 
man finds himself of an age to be dismissed from parental control; 



CINCINNATI, OHIO, SEPTEMBER 17, 1850. 505 

he has for liis capital nothing, save two strong hands that (iod has 
given him, a licait willing to labor, and a freedom to choose tlie 
motle of his work and the manner of his employment; he has got no 
soil nor shop, and he avails himself of the opportnnity of hiring 
himself to some man who has capital to pay him a fair days wages 
for a fair day's work. He is benefited by availing himself of that 
privilege. He works industriously, he behaves soberly, and the re- 
sult of a 3'ear or two's labor is a surplus of capital. Now he buys 
land on his own hook; he settles, marries, begets sons and daugh- 
ters, and in course of time he has enough capital to hire some new 
beginner. 

In this same way every meml)cr of the whole community bene- 
fits and improves his condition. That is the true condition of labor 
in the world, and it breaks up the saying of these men that there is 
a class of men chained down throughout life to labor for another. 
There is no such case unless he be of that confiding, and leaning 
disposition that makes it preferable for him to choose that course, 
or unless he be a vicious man, who, by reason of his vice, is, in 
some way prevented from improving his condition, or else he be a 
singularly unfortunate man. There is no such thing as a man be- 
ing bound down in a free country through his life as a laborer. 
This progress by which the poor, honest, industrious, and resolute 
man raises himself, that he may work on his own account and hire 
somebody else, is that progress that human nature is entitled to, is 
that improvement in condition that is intended to be secured by 
those institutions under which we live, is the great principle for 
which this rTOvernmont was really formed. Our Government was 
not established that one man might do with himself as he pleases, 
and with another man too. 

I hold that if there is any one thing that can be proved to be the 
will of God by external nature around us without reference to 
revelation, it is the proposition that whatever any one man eanis 
with his hands and by the sweat of his brow, he shall enjoy in 
peace. I say that whereas God Almighty has given every man 
one mouth to be fed, and one pair of hands adapted to furnish food 
for that mouth, if anything can be proved to be the will of Heaven, 
it is proved by this fact, that that mouth is to be fed by those 
hands, without being interfered with by any other man who has also 
his mouth to feed and his hands to labor with. 

I hold if the Almighty had ever made a set of men that should 
do all of the eating and none of the work, he would have made 



50G SPEECU OF LINCOLN. 

tht'iu wilh mouths only and no bands ; and if he had ever made 
HUothtT chiss that he intended should do all the work and none of 
the eating, he would have made them without mouths and wilh all 
hands. But inasmuch as he has not chosen to make man in that 
way, if anything; is proved, it is that those hands and mouths are to 
be co-operative through life and not to be interfered with. That 
they are to go forth and iniprovu thi-ir condition as T h.ivc been 
trying to illustrate, is the inherent right given to mankind directly 
by the Maker. 

In the exerci.se of this right you must have room. In the filling 
up of countries, it turns out after a while that we get so thick that 
we have not quite room enough for the exercise of that right, and 
we desire to go somewhere else. Where shall we go to? Where 
shall you go to escape from over-population and competition? To 
those new Territi>ries which belong to us, which are God-given for 
that purpose. If, then, you will go to those Territories that j'ou 
may improve your condition, you have a right to keep them in the 
best conilition for those going into them, and can they niake that 
natural ailvance in their condition if they find the institution of 
slavery planted there? 

My good friends, let me ask you a question — you who have 
come from A'irginia or Kentucky, to get ritl of this thing of slavery 
— let me ask you what headway would you have made hi getting 
rid of it, if by Popular Sovereignty you found slavery on that soil 
which you looked for to be free when you got there? You would 
not have made much headway if you had found slavery alread}' 
here, if you had to sit down to your labor by the side of the unpaid 
workman. 

I say, then, that it is due to yourselves as voters, as owners of 
the new Territories, that you shall keej) those Territories free, in the 
best condition for all such of your gallant sons as ma}- choose to go 
there. 

I do not desire to elaborate this branch of the general subject of 
political discussion at this time further. I did not think I would 
get upon this topic at all, and I have detained you already too long 
in its discu-ssion. 

W.V.NT OF A NATIO.N.VL POI.irV. 

I have taken iqion myself, in Ihe name of some <»f you, to say 
that we expect upon these principles to ultimately lieat them. In 
order to do so, I think we want and must have a national policy in 



CINCINNATI, OHIO, SEPTEMBER 17, 1859. -,07 

regard to the institution of slavery, that acknowledges and deals 
with that institution as being wrong. Whoever desires the preven- 
tion of the spread of slavery and the nationalization of that institu- 
tion, yields all, when he yields to any policy that either recognizes 
slavery as being right, or as being an indifferent thing. Notiiing 
will make you successful but setting up a policy which shall treat 
the thing as being wrong. 

When I say this, I do not mean to say that this General Govern- 
ment is charged with the duty of redressing or preventing all the 
wrongs in the world, but I do think that it is charged with prevent- 
ing and redressing all wrongs which are wrongs to itself. This 
Government is expressly charged with the duty of providing for the 
general welfare. We believe that the spreading out and perpetuity 
of the institution of slavery impairs the general welfare. We believe 
— nay, we know — that that is the only thing that has ever threat- 
ened the perpetuity of the Union itself. The only thing which has 
ever menaced the destruction of the Government under which we 
live, is this very thing. To repress this thing, we think, is provid- 
ing for the general welfare. Our friends in Kentucky differ from 
ns. We need not make our argument for them, but we w^ho think 
it is wrong in all its relations, or in some of them at least, must 
decide as to our own actions and our own course, upon our own 
judgment. 

I sny that we must not interfere with the institution of slavery 
in the States where it exists, because the Constitution forbids it, 
and the general welfare does not require us to do so. We must not 
withhold an efficient Fugitive -Slave law, because the Constitution 
requires us, as I understand it, not to withhold such a law. But 
we must prevent the outspreading of the institution, because neither 
the Constitution nor general welfare requires us to extend it. We 
must prevent the revival of the African slave trade, and the enact- 
ing by Congress of a Territorial slave-code. We must prevent each 
of these things being done by either Congres.ses or Courts. The 
people of these United States are the rightful masters of both Con- 
gresses and Courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to over- 
throw the men who pervert the Constitution. 

To do these things we must employ instrumentalities. We must 
hold conventions; we must adopt platforms, if we conform to ordi- 
nary custom; we must nominate candidates; and we must carry 
elections. In all these things, I think that we ought to keep in 
view our real purpose, and in none do anything that stands adverse 



508 SPEi:C!l OK LINCOLN. 

to our puriwso. If we shall adopt a platform that fails to recognize 
or express our purpose, or elect a man that tleclares himself inimi- 
cal to our purpose, we not only make nothing by our succi'ss, but we 
tiicitly admit that we act upon no other principle than a desire to 
have "the loaves and fishes," by which, in the end, our ai)i)arent 
success is reall}' an injury to us. 

I know that this is very desiral)le with mo, as with everybody 
else, that all the elements of the opposition shall unite in the next 
Presidential election and in all fiilure liiiic I am anxious that 
that should be; but there are things seriously to be considered in 
relation to that matter. If the terms can be arranged, I am in 
favor of the Union. Hut suppose we shall take up some man, and 
put liim upon one end or the other of the ticket, who declares him- 
self against us in regard to the prevention of the spread of slavery, 
who turns up his no.se and says he is tired of hearing anything more 
about it, who is more against us than against the enemy, what will 
be the issue? Wh}', he will get no Slave States, after all, — he has 
tried that already until being l)eat is the rule for him. If we nomi- 
nate him upon that ground, he will not carry a Slave State; and not 
onl}' so, but that portion of our men who are highstrung upon the 
principle we really fight for, will not go for him, and he won"t get a 
single electoral vote anywhere, except perhaps, in the Slate of Mary- 
land. There is no use in saying to us that we are stubborn and 
obstinate because we won't do some such thing as this. We cannot 
do it. We cannot get our men to vote it. I speak by the card, 
that we cannot give the State of Illinois in such case b}' fifty thou- 
sand. We would be flatter down than the "Negro Democracy" 
themselves have the heart to wish to see us. 

After saying this much, let me say a little on the other side. 
There are plenty of men in the Slave States that are altogether good 
enough for me to be either President or Vice-President, provided 
they will jjrofess their sympathy with our jjurpose, and will i)Iace 
themselves on the ground that our men, upon [jrinciple, can vote 
for them. There are scores of them, good men in their character 
for intelligence and talent and integrity. If such a one will place 
him.self upon the right ground, I am for iiis occupying one place 
upon the ni'Xt Republican or opposition ticki't. I will heartily go 
for him. Hut unless he does so place himself, I think it a matter 
of perfect nonsen.se to attempt to bring about u union upon any 
other basis; that if a union be made, the I'lements will scatter so 
that there can be no smcc«'ss for such a ticket, nor anything like 
success. 



^T, ..'tk«. r 



* 

i- 




CINCINNATI, OHIO, SEPTEMBER 17, 18.19. 509 

The good old maxims of the Bible are applicable, and tndy :ip- 
plicable, to human affairs, and in this, as in other things, we njny 
say here that he who is not for us is against us; he who gaUieivlh 
not with us, scattereth. I should be glad to have some of Uie many 
good, and able, and noble men of the South to place themselves 
where we can confer upon them the high honor of an election upon 
one or the other end of our ticket. It would do my soul good to do 
that thing. It would enal)le us to teach them that inasmuch as we 
select one of their own number to carry out our i)iinciples, we are 
free from the charge that we mean more than we say. 

But, my friends, I have detained you much longer than ] ex- 
pected to do. I believe I may do myself the compliment to s:iy 
that you have stayed and heard me with great patience, for which I 
return you my most sincere thanks. 



COOPER INSTITUTE SPEECH. 

Delivered at Cooper Institute, New York City, February 27, ISGO. 

[In the fall of 1859, some young men of New York City, in arranping 
for a lecture to promote a benevolent object, asked Mr. Henry C. Bowen, 
proprietor of the Independent, to name a speaker who would draw such a 
crowd as to insure success to their effort. Mr. Bowen named Mr. Lincoln 
as "the best man to fill Cooper Institute." He was accordingly invited, 
and accepted the invitation ; and in a letter dated Nov. 13, 1859, closing 
the arrangement, said : "I believe, after all, I shall make a political 
speech of it." And the following is the speech. This great speech, more 
than an}' other one, is supposed to have secured Lincoln the nomination 
for President.] 

Mr. President and Fellow-Citizens of New York : The 
facts with which I shall deal this evening are mainly old and famil- 
iar; nor is there anything new in the general use I shall make of 
them. If there shall be any novelt}', it will be in the mode of pre- 
senting the facts, and the references and observations following that 
presentation. 

In his speech last autumn, at Columbus, Ohio, as reported in 
the New York Times, Senator Douglas said : — 

"Our fathers, when they framed the Government under which we live, 
understood this question just as well, and even better than we do now," 



510 SPEECH or lincdln. 

I fully indorse this, and I adopt it as a text for this discourse. 
I so adopt it lit'causf it furnishfs a precise and an agreed starting- 
lM)int fur a diseussion between Republicans and that wing of De- 
ujoeraey lu-aded by Senator Douglas. It simply leaves the inquiry: 
"What was the understanding those fathers had of the question 
mentioned? 

What is tlie franu- of government under which we live? 'i'lie 
answi-r must 1k' : " Tlie Constitution of the United States." Tliat 
Constitution consists of the original, framed in 17H7 (and under 
which the present ( rovernmi'nt lirst went into operation), and twelve 
sidist'Ciui'Utly-frauntl amenduienls, the lirsL ten of which weri' framed 
in 178:i. 

TlIK KATIIKKS AM> TllK ("ONSTlTirTlO.N. 

Who were our fathers that framed the Constitution? I suppose 
the " thirty-nine" who signed the original instrument may be fairly 
called our fathers who framed that part of our present (Jovernment. 
It is almost exactly true to say they framed it, and it is altogether 
true to saj' they fairly represented the opinion and sentiment of the 
whole nation at that time. Their names })eing familiar U) nearly 
all, and accessil)le to quite all, need not now be repeated. I take 
these "thirt^'-niue," for the present, as being "our fathers who 
framed the Government under which we live." 

What is the question which, according to the text, those fathers 
understood just as well and even better than we do now? It is 
this: Does the proper division of local from Federal authority, or 
aiu'thing in the Constitution, forbid our Federal Cfovernment to 
control as to slavery in our Federal Territories? 

Upon this Seiuitor Douglas holds the allirmative, anil Ju-pub- 
licans the negative. This affirmative and denial form an issue; and 
this i.ssue — this (piestion — is precisely what the text declares our 
fathers understood better than we. Let us now inipiire whether the 
" thirty-nine" or any of thrm, ever actcil upon this question ; and 
if they did, how tlicy acted upon il — -how tlicy exi)ressetl that 
better understanding. 

In 17S4 — three years before the Constitution — the United 
Stiites then owning the Northwestern Territory, and no other — the 
Congress of the Confederation had before thciu tlic question of 
prohibiting slavery in that Territory; and four of the " thirty-nine'" 
who afterward framed tlie Constitution were in that Congress, and 
voted <»n that question. Of these, Roger Slu'rman, Thomas Milllin, 



NEW YORK CITY, FEBRUARY 27, 18G0. -)] 1 

and Hugh Williamson voted for the prohibition, thus showing that, 
ill their understanding, no line dividing local from Federal au- 
thority, nor anything else, properly forbade the Federal (J(jvernment 
to control as to slavery in Federal Territory. The other of the four, 
James McIIenry, voted against the prohibition, showing that, for 
some cause, he thought it improper to vote for it. 

In 1787, still before the Constitution, but while the convention 
was in session framing it and while the Northwest Territory still 
was the only Territory owned by the United States — the same fjues- 
tion of prohibiting slavery in the Territory again came before the 
Congress of the Confederation, and two more of the " thirty-nine" 
who afterward signed the Constitution were in that Congress and 
.voted on the question. They were William Blount, and William 
Few, and they voted for the prohibition, thus showing that, in 
their understanding, no line dividing local from Federal authority, 
nor anything else, i)roperly forbade tlie Federal Government to 
control as to slavery in Federal Territory. This time the pro- 
hibition became a law, being a part of what is now known as 
the Ordinance of '87. 

The question of Federal control of slavery in the Territories 
seems not to have been directly before the convention which framed 
the original Constitution, and hence it is not recorded that the 
" thirty-nine " or any of them, while engaged on that instrument, 
expressed any opinion on that precise question. 

In 1789, by the first Congress which sat under the Constitution, 
an act was passed to enforce the Ordinance of '87, including the pro- 
hibition of slavery in the Northwestern Territor}'. The bill for 
this act was reported by one of the " thirty-nine," Thomas Fitzsim- 
mons, then a member of the House of Representatives from Penn- 
sylvania. It went through all its stages without a word of opposition, 
and finally passed both branches without yeas or nays, which is 
equivalent to a unanimous passage. In this Congress there were 
sixteen of the "thirty-nine" fathers who framed the original Con- 
stitution. They were: — 

John Langdon, George Clymer, Richard Bassett, 

Nicholas Gilman, William Few, George Read, 

William S. Johnson, Abraham Baldwin, Pierce Butler, 

Roger Sherman, Rufus King, Daniel Carroll, 

Robert Morris, William Patterson, James Madison, 
Thomas Fitzsimmons. 



512 SPEECH OF LINCOLN, 

Tliis shows that in thi-ir un(k'rstandin<; no line dividing local 
frtnu Federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, properly 
f(irl»ade Congress to prohibit slavery in the Feileral Territory; else 
both their fulelity to correct principle, and their oatii to support 
the Constitution, would have constrained them to oppose the pro- 
hibition. 

Again : George Washington, another of the " thirty-nine," was 
then President of the United SUites, and, as such, approved and 
signed the bill, thus completing its validity as a law, and thus show- 
ing that, in his understanding, no line dividing local from Federal 
authority, nor anything in the ConstituticMi, forbade the Federal 
Government to control as to slavery in Federal Trrritory. 

No great while after the adoption of the original Constitution,, 
Nortli Carolina ceded to the Federal Government the country now 
constituting the State of Tennessee; and a few years later, Georgia 
ceded that which now constitutes the States of Mississippi and Ala- 
bama. In both deeds of cession it was made a condition by the 
ceding States that the Federal Government should not prohibit 
slaver}- in the ceded country. Besides this, slavery was then ac- 
tually in the ceded country. Under these circumstances, Congress, 
on taking charge of these countries, did not absolutely prohibit 
slavery within them. But they did interfere with it — take control 
of it — even there, to a certain extent. In 1798, Congress organized 
the Territory of Mississippi. In the act of organization, they pro- 
hibited the bringing of slaves into the Territories, from any place 
without the United States, by line, and by giving freedom to 
slaves 80 brought. This act passed both branches of Congress with- 
out yeas and nays. In that Congress were three of the "thirty- 
nine " who framed the original Ccjnstilution. They were John 
Langdon, George Read, and Abraham Baldwin. Tlu-y all probably 
voted for it. Certainly they would have placed their opposition to 
it upon record, if, in their understanding, any line dividing local 
from Federal authority, or anything in the Constitution, properly 
forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in Federal 
Territory. 

In ls((:{, the Federal Government i)urchased the Louisiana coun- 
try. Our former Territorial acquisitions came from certain of our 
own States; but this Louisiana country was acquired from a foreign 
nation. In 1S()4, Congress gave a Territorial organization to that 
part of it which now constitutes tlu' State of Louisiana. New Or- 
l<ans, lying within that part, was an ol<l and comparativi'Iy large 



NEW YORK CITY, FEBRUARY 27, 1860. 513 

city. There were other considerable towns jind settlements, and 
slavery was extensively and thoroughly intermingled with the peo- 
ple. Congress did not, in the Territorial act, prohibit slavery; but 
they did interfere with it — take control of it — in a more marked 
and extensive way tlum they did in the case of Mississippi. The 
substance of the provision therein made, in relation to slaves, was: — 

First, That no slaves should be imported into the Territory from 
foreign parts. 

Second, That no slaves should be carried into it who had been 
imported into the United States since the first day of May, 1798. 

Third, That no slave should be can-ied into it, except by the 
owner, and for his own use as a settler; the penalty in all the cases 
being a fine upon the violator of the law, and freedom to the slave. 

This act, also, was passed without yeas and nays. In the Con- 
gress which passed it there were two of the < ' thirty-nine. " They 
were Abraham Baldwin and Jonathan Dayton. As stated in the 
case of Mississippi, it is probable they both voted for it; they 
would not have allowed it to pass without recording their opposition 
to it, if, in their understanding, it violated either the line prop- 
erly dividing local from Federal authority or any provision of the 
Constitution. 

In 1819-20 came, and passed, the Missouri question. Many 
votes were taken by yeas and nays, in both branches of Congress, 
upon the vai'ious phases of the general question. Two of the 
" thirty-nine," Rufus King and Charles Pinckney, were members of 
that Congress. Mr. King steadily voted for slavery prohibition 
and against all compromises, while Mr. Pinckney as steadily voted 
against slavery prohibition and against all compromises. By this 
Mr. King showed that in his understanding, no line divided local 
from Federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution was vio- 
lated by Congress prohibiting slavery in Federal Territory; while 
Mr. Pinckney, by his votes, showed that in his understanding there 
was some diff'ereut reason for opposing such prohibition in the case. 

The cases I have mentioned are the only acts of the "thirty- 
nine," or any of them upon the direct issue, which I have been able 
to discover. 

To enumerate the persons who thus acted, as being four in 1784, 
two in 1787, seventeen in 1789, three in 1798, two in 1804, and 
two in 1819-20 there would be thirty of them. But this would 
be counting John Langdou, Roger Sherman, William Few, Rufus 
King, and George Read, each twice, and Abraham Baldwin three 
33 



.-.14 SPEECH <»F I.1N( ()L\. 

limes. The true number of those of the "thirty-nine," whom I 
have sliown to have aeted upon the question, which, by the text, 
tliey understood better than we, is twenty-three, leaving sixteen not 
shown to have aeted upon it in any way. 

Here, then, we liave twenty-three of our •• thirty-niiu' " fatliers 
%vho framed the (lovernraent uihUt wliich we liv«', who liave, upon 
Iheir ollirial responsibility and their corporal oaths, acted upon tiie 
very ijuestion which the ti'xt allirms they " understood just as well, 
and even better tlian wc do now , ' and twenty-one of them — a clear 
majority of the whole " thirty-nine " — so acting upon it as to make 
them guilty of gross political impropriety and willful j.erjury, if, 
in their understanding, any proper division between local and 
Federal authority, or anything in the Constitution the}' had made 
themselves and sworn to support, forbade the Federal Government 
to control, as to slavery, in the Federal Territories. Thus the 
twenty-one acted ; and, as actions speak louder than words, so 
acti«)ns under such responsibility speak still louder. 

Two of the twenty-three votetl against Congressional prohibition 
of slavery in the Federal Territories, in the instances in which 
they acted upon the question. But for what reasons they so voted 
is not known. The}* may have done so because they thought a 
proper division of local from Federal authority, or some provision 
or principle of the Constitution, stood in the way; or they may, 
without any such (juestion, have voted against the prohibition on 
what appeared to them to be sufficient grounds of expediency. No 
one who has sworn to support the Constitution can conscientiously 
vote for what he understands to be an unconstitutional measure, 
however expedient he may think it; but one may and ought to vote 
against a measure which he deems constitutional, if, at the same 
time, he deems it inexpedient. It, therefore, would be unsafe to 
set down even the two who voted against the prohibition, as having 
done so because, in their understanding, any proper division of 
local from Federal authority, or anything in the Constitution, for- 
l)ade the Fe(leral (iovernment to control, as to slavery, in the Terri- 
tories. 

The remaining sixteen «>f tl thirty-nine," so far as I havi* 

discovered, have left no record of tiieir understanding upon the 
direct (juestion of Federal control of slavery in tiie I'ederal Territo- 
ries. Hut there is much n-ason to believe that their understanding 
U|M»n that (juestion would not havt- appeariMl dilFerent from that of 
their twenty-three compeers, had it been manifcslc«l at all, 



NEW YORK CITY, FEBRUARY 27, 18(iO. 515 

For the purpose of adhering rigidly to the text, I have purposely 
omitted whatever understanding may have been manifested i»v any 
person, however distinguished, other than the " thirty-nine " fathers 
who framed the original Constitution; and, for the same reason, I 
have also omitted whatever understanding may have heen mani- 
fested by any of the " thirty-nine" even, on any other phase of the 
general question of slaver}-. If we should look into their acts and 
declarations on these other phases, as the foreign slave trade, and 
the morality and policy of slavery generally, it would appear to us 
that on the direct question of Federal control of slavery in Federal 
Territories, the sixteen, if they had acted at all, would probably 
have acted just as the twenty-three did. Among that sixteen were 
several of the most noted anti-slavery men of those times, as J)r. 
Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and Gouverneur Morris; while there 
Avas not one now known to have been otherwise, unless it may be 
John Rutledge, of South Carolina. 

The sum of the whole is, that of our '-thirty-nine ' fathers who 
framed the original Constitution, twenty-one, a clear majority of 
the whole, certainly understood that no proper division of local from 
Federal authority, nor any part of the Constitution, forbade the 
Federal Government to control as to slavery in the Federal Terri- 
tories, while all the rest probably had the same understanding. 
Such, unquestionably, was the understanding of our fathers who 
framed the original Constitution ; and the text aUirms that they un- 
derstood the question better than w-e. 

THE AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION. 

But, SO far, I have been considering the understanding of the 
question manifested by the framers of the original Constitution. 
In and by the original instrument, a mode was provided for amend- 
ing it; and, as I have already stated, the present frame of Govern- 
ment 'under which we live consists of that original and twelve 
amendatory articles framed and adopted since. Those who now in- 
sist that Federal control of slavery in Federal Territories violates 
the Constitution, point us to the provisions which they suppose it 
thus violates; and, as I understand, they all fix upon provisions in 
these amendatory articles, and not in the original instrument. The 
Supreme Court, in the Died Scott case, plant themselves upon the 
fifth amendment, which provides that " no person shall be deprived 
of property v/ithout due process of law;" while Senator Douglas 
and his peculiar adherents plant themselves upon the tenth amend- 



r)16 SPEECH uF l.lNt (»LN, 

ment, providing that " the powers not delegated to the United 
States by the Constitution " •• are reserved to the States respec- 
tively or to the people." 

Now it so hapiK'US thiit these ainemlim-nls were fniincd by the 
liret Congress which sal under the Cimstitiilion — the identical 
Congress which passed the aet already mentioned, enforcing the 
prt>hihition of slavery in the Northwestern Territory. Not only was 
it the same Congress. Imt they were the ich'ntical .same indivitlual 
men who, at tlie same session, and at the same time within the 
session, had under consideration, and in {irogress towtird maturity, 
these Constitutional amenihnenls and this aet prohiliiting slavery in 
all the territory tlie nation then owned. The Constitutional amend- 
ments were introduced before and pas.sed after the act enforcing the 
Ordinance of 1787; so tiiat during the whole pendency of the act to 
enforce the ordinance, the Constitutional amendments were also 
pending. 

That Congress, consisting in all of seventy-six members, inclutl- 
ing sixteen of the framers of the original Constituti(jn, as before 
stated, were pre-eminently our fathers who framed that part of the 
government under which we live which is now claimed as forbidding 
the Federal (lovernn)cnt to control slavery in the Federal Terri- 
tories. 

Is it not a little presumptuous in any one at this day to alllrm 
that the two things which that Congress deliberately framed, and 
carried to maturity at the same time, are absolutely inconsistent 
with each other? And does not such atlirmation become impu- 
dently absurd when coupled with the other atlirmation, from the 
same mouth, that those who did the two things alleged to be in- 
consistent, understood whether they really were inconsistent better 
than we — better tiian he who allirms that they are inconsistent? 

It ii? surely safe to assume that the "thirty-nine" framers of 
the original Constitution, and the seventy-six members of the Con- 
gress which franjcd the amendments thereto, taken together, do cer- 
tainly include those who may be fairly called "our fathers who 
frameil the (Jovernment under which we live." And so assuming, I 
defy any man to show that any one of them ever in his whole life 
dcclarcil that, m his understanding, any propiT division of local 
from Federal authority, (»r any part of the Constitution, forbade the 
Federal Government to control as to slavery in the Federal Terri- 
tories. 

I go a stc|i fiiitlicr. I defy any one to show that any living 
man in the whole world ever did, prior to the beginning of the 



NEW YORK CITY, FEBRUARY 27. 1860. 517 

present century (and I might almost say prior to tliu beginning of 
the hist half of the present century), declare that, in his under- 
standing, any proper division of local from Federal authority, or 
any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to 
control as to slavery in the Federal Territories. To those who now 
so declare, I give, not only "our fathers who framed the (Govern- 
ment under which we live," but with them all other living men 
within the century in which it was framed, among whom to search, 
and they shall not be able to lind the evidence of a single man 
agreeiug with them. 

Now, and here, let me guard against ])eiiig misunderstood. I 
do not mean to say we are bound to follow implicitly in whatever 
our fathers did. To do so would be to discard all the iiglits of 
current experience, to reject all progress, all improvement. What 
I do say is, that if we would supplant the opinions and policy of 
our fathers iu any case, we should do so upon evidence so conclu- 
sive, and argument so clear, that even their great authority, fairly 
considered and weighed, cannot stand ; and most assuredly not in 
a case whereof we ourselves declare they understood the question 
better than we. 

If au}^ man, at this day, sincerely believes that a proper divis- 
ion of local from Federal authority, or any part of the Constitution, 
forbids the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the 
Federal Territories, he is right to say so, and to enforce his position 
by all truthful evidence and fair argument wdiich he can. But he 
has no right to mislead others, who have less aocess to history and 
less leisure to study it, into the false belief that " our fathers, who 
framed the Government under which we live," were of the same 
opinion, thus substituting falsehood and deception for truthful evi- 
dence and fair argument. If any man at this day sincerely believes 
"our fathers, who framed the Government under which we live," 
used and applied principles, in other cases, which ought to have 
led them to understand that a proper division of local from Federal 
authority, or some part of the Constitution, forbids the Federal 
Government to control as to slavery in the Federal Territories, he 
is right to say so. But he should, at the same time, brave the 
responsibility of declaring that, in his opinion, he understands their 
principles better than they did themselves; and especially should he 
not shirk that responsibility by asserting that they " understood the 
question just as well, and even better, than we do now, " 

But enough. Let all who believe that " our fathers, who framed 
the Government under which we live, understood this question just 



518 SPEECH OF LINCOLN. 

P.S w?U, and even better, than we do now," speak as they spoke, 
and act as they acted upon it. Tliis is uU Ki-pultrK-aiis ask all 
ll.-piililicans (Ifsiiv — in relation to slavery. As those fathers 
marked it, so let it be again marked, as an evil not to be extended, 
hut tt) \k> tolerated and protected only because of and so far us its 
actual presence amonj; us makes that toleration and protection a 
necessity. Let all the guarantees those fathers ijave it, l)e, not 
j^rudgingly, but fully and fairly, maintained. For this, llepubli- 
cans contend, and with this, so far as 1 know or believe, they will 
be content. 

And now. if they would listen — as I suppose they will not — 1 
would address 

.\ VKW Words Tu TIIK .SorTIIKIl.V peopi.k. 

I would say to them; You consider youselves u rea.sonable and 
just people, and I consider that in the general qualities of reason 
and justice you are not inferior to any other people. Still, when 
you speak of us Kei)ublicans, you do so oidy to donounce us as 
n-ptiles, or, at the best, as no better than outlaws. You will grant 
a hearing to pirates or murderers, liut nothing like it to "Black 
Republicans." In all your contentions with one another, each of 
you deems au unconditional condemnation of " Black l{('i)ulilican- 
ism " as the first thing to be attended to. Indeed, such condemna- 
tion of us seems to be an indispensable prerequisite — license, 
so to speak — among j'ou. to be admitted or permitted to speak 
at all. 

Now, can you, or not, be prevailed upon to pause and to consider 
whether this is (juite just to us, or even to yourselves? Bring for- 
ward your charges and specifications, and then be patient long 
enough to hear us deny or justify. You say we are sectional. \Ve 
<leny it. That makes an issue; and (he burden of pronf is upon 
you. You produce your proof; and what is it? \\ hy, that our 
party has no existence in 3'our section — gets no votes in your sec- 
tion. The fact is 8ul)stantially true; but does it prove the issue? 
If it does, then, in case we should, without change of principle. 
begin to get votes in your section, we should thereb}' cease to be 
sectional. You cannot escajjc this conclusion; and yet, are you 
willing to abide l)y it? if you are, you will probably soon fin<l that 
we have cea.sed to be sectional, for we shall get votes in yoursection 
this very year. You will then begin to discover, as the truth 
plainly is. that your proof does not touch the issue. 



NEW YORK CITY, FEBRUARY 27, 1860. 519 

The fact that we get no votes in your section is a fact of your 
making, and not of ours. And if there be fault in that fact that 
fault is primarily yours, and remains so until you show that we 
repel you by some wrong principle or practice. If we do repel you 
by any wrong principle or practice, the fault is ours; but this brings 
you to where you ought to have .started— to a discussion of the 
right or wrong of our principle. If our principle, put in practice, 
would wrong your section for the benefit of ours, or for any other 
object, then our principle, and we with it, are sectional, and are 
justly opposed and denounced as such. 

Meet us, then, on the question of whether our principle, put iu 
practice, would wrong your section ; and so meet us as if it were 
possible that something may be said on our side. Do you accept 
the challenge? No. Then you really believe that the principle 
which our fathers, who framed the Government under which we 
live, thought so clearly right as to adopt it, and indorse it again 
and again, upon their official oaths, is, in fact, so clearly wrong as 
to demand your condemnation without a moment's consideration. 

Some of you delight to flaunt in our faces the warning against 
sectional parties given by Washington in his Farewell Address. 
Less than eight years before Washington gave that warning, he 
had, as President of the United States, approved and signed an act 
of Congress enforcing the prohibition of slavery in the Northwestern 
Territory, which act embodied the policy of the Government upoii 
that suljject, up to and at the very moment he penned that warning; 
and about one year after he penned it, he wrote Lafayette that he 
considered that prohibition a wise measure, expressing, in the same 
connection, his hope that we should some time have a confederacy 
of Free States. 

Bearing this iu mind, and seeing that sectionalism has since 
arisen upon this same subject, is that warning a weapon in your 
hands against us, or in our hands against you? Could Washington 
himself speak, would he cast the blame of that sectionalism upon 
us, who sustain his polic}', or upon 3'ou who repudiate it? We re- 
spect that warning of Washington, and we commend it to you, 
together with his example pointing to the right application of it. 

But you say you are conservative — eminently conservative — 
while we are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. 
What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, 
against the new and untried? We stick to contend for the identical 
old policy, on the point of controversy, which was adopted by our 



f)20 SPKl'X'll OF LINCOLN, 

fjithers who framed the Governnu-iit under wlikh wc livi"; while you 
witli one neeord reject, aud scout, iind spit upon tliat old policy, and 
insist upon substituting something new. True, you disagree among 
y«>urselves as to what tliat substitute shall be. You have consider- 
able variety of new propositions and plans, but you are unanimous 
in rejecting and denouncing the okl policy of the fathers. 

Some of 3'ou are for reviving the foreign slave trade; some for 
a Congressional slave code for the Territories; some for Congress 
forbidding the Territories to pr(>hil)it slavery within their limits; 
some for maintaining shivery in the Territories through the judiciary; 
some for the " gur-reat pur-rinciple " that "if one man would 
enslave another, no third man should ol)ject," fantastically called 
'•Popular Sovereignty;" but never a man among you in favor of 
Federal prohibition of slavery in Federal Territories, according to 
the practice of our fathers who framed the Government under which 
we live. Not one of all your various plans can show a precedent or 
an advocate in the century within which our Government originated. 
Consider, then, whether your claim of conservatism for yourselves, 
and your charge of destructiveness against us, are based on the 
most clear and stal)le foundations. 

Again, you say we have made the slaver}' question more promin- 
ent than it formerly was. We deny it. We admit that it is more 
prominent ; but we deny that we made it so. It was not we, but 
you, who discarded the old policy of the fathers. We resisted, and 
still resist, j-our innovation ; and thence comes the greater promin- 
ence of the question. Would you have that question reduced to its 
former proportions? Go back to that old policy. What has been, 
will be again, under the same conditions. If you would have the 
peace of the old times, re-adopt the precepts and policy of the old 
times. 

You charge that we stir up insurrections among your slaves. 
We deny it; aiul what is your proof? Harper's Ferry! John 
IJrown ! John Brown was no Republican; and you have failed to 
implicate a single Republicai. in his Harpers Ferry enterprise. If 
un) member of our party is guilty in that matter, you know it or 
you do not know it. If you do know -it, you are inexcusal)le 
not to designate tlie man and jjrove the fact. If 3'ou ilo not know- 
it, 30U are inexcusable to as.sert it, and especially to persist in the 
assertion after you have tried, and failed, to make the proof. You 
need not be told that persisting in a charge which one does not know 
to be true, is simply malicious slander. 



NEW YORK CITY, FEBRUARY 27. 18G0. 521 

Some of 3'ou admit that no Republican (lesiiiiiediy -.inU'il or en- 
couraged the Harper s Ferry affair, but still insist that o.i;- doctrines 
and declarations necessaiily lead to sueii results. We ilo ncjt be- 
lieve it. We know we hold to no doctrines, and make no declara- 
tions, which were not held to and made by our fathci's who framed 
the Government under which we live, You never dealt fairly l»y us 
in relation to this affair. When it occurred, some important State 
elections were near at hand, and you were in evident glee with the 
belief that, by charging the blame upon us you could get an advan- 
tage of us in those elections. The elections came, and ycur exi)ecta- 
tions were not quite fullilled. Every Kepublican man knew that, as 
to himself at least, j^our charge was a slander, and he was not much 
inclined by it to cast his vote in j^our favor. 

Republican doctrines and declarations are accompanied with a 
continual protest against any interference whatever with your slaves, 
or with you about your slaves. Surely this does not encourage them 
to revolt. True, we do, in common with our fathers who framed 
the Government under which we live declare our belief that slavery 
is wrong; but the slaves do not hear us declare even this. For any- 
thing we say or do, the slaves would scarcely know there is a Re- 
publican party. I believe they would not, in fact, generally know 
it but for your misrepresentations of us in their hearing. In 5'our 
political contests among yourselves, each faction charges the other 
with sympathy with Black Republicanism; and then, to give point 
to the charge, defines Black Republicanism to be simply insurrec- 
tion, and blood and thunder, among the slaves. 

Slave insurrections are no more common now than they were be- 
fore the Republican party was organized. What induced the South- 
ampton insurrection, twenty-eight years ago, in which at least 
three times as many lives were lost as at Harper's Ferry ? You can 
scarcely stretch your very elastic fancy to the conclusion that South- 
ampton was got up by Black Republicanism. In the present state 
of things in the United States, I do not think a general, or even a 
very extensive, slave insurrection is possible. The indispensable 
concert of action cannot be attained. The slaves have no means of 
rapid communication; nor can incendiary free men, black or white, 
supply it. The explosive materials are everywhere in parcels: but 
there neither are, nor can be supplied, the indispensable connecting 
trains. 

Much is said by Southern people about the affection of slaves 
for their masters and mistresses; and a part of it, at least, is true 



522 SPEECH (»F LINCOLN, 

A plDt for the uprising fould sctiively Iil* devised and communicated 
to twenty iniliviiliials before some one of them, to save the life of 
a favorite master or mistress, would divulge it. Tliis is the rule; 
and the slavi- revolution in Ilayti was not an exception to it, but a 
case i>ccurring under peculiar circumstances. 'I'iic gunpowder plot 
of British history, though not conniH-lcd with slaves, was more in 
pt»int. In that case only al»out twenty were atlmitteil to the secret; 
and yet one of tliem, in his anxiety to save a frienil, i)etrayed the 
plot to that friend, and, by consecjuence, averted the calamity. 

Occasi(jnal poisonings from the kitchen, and open or stealthy 
assassinations in the iield, and local revolts extending to a score or 
so, will continue to occur as the natural results of slavery; but no 
general insurrection of slaves, as I think, can happen in this coun- 
try lor a long time. Whoever much fears, or much hopes, for such 
an event, will be alike disappointed. 

In the language of Mr. Jellerson, uttereil many years ago, "It 
is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation and de- 
portation peaceal)ly. and in such slow ilegrees, as that the evil will 
wear olf insensibly; and their places be, puri passu, filled up bj' 
free white laborers. If, on the contrary, it is left to force itself on, 
human nature must shudder at the prospect held up." 

Mr. Jetferson did not mean to sa^', nor do I, that the power of 
emancipation is in the Federal Government. He spoke of Virginia; 
and as to the power of emancipation, I speak of the slaveholding 
States only. 

The Federal riovernmeut, however, as we insist, has the power 
of restraining the extension of the institution — the power to insure 
that a slave insurrection shall never occur on any American soil 
which is now free from slavery. 

John Hrowns eJFort was peculiar. It was not a slave insurrec- 
tion. It was an attempt by white men to get \\\) a revolt among 
slaves, in which the slaves refused to participate. In fact, it was 
so absurd that the slaves, with all tlu-ir ignorance, saw plainly 
enough it could not succeed. That affair, in its philosophy, corres- 
ponds with the many attempts, related in history, at the assassina- 
tion of kings and emperors. An enthusiast broods over the 
oppression of a people till he fancies himself commissioned by 
Heaven to liberate them. He ventures the attempt, which ends in 
little else than in liis own execution. Orsini s attempt on Louis 
Najioleon, and .John Brown s atti-mpt at Harper's Ferry, were, in 
their philosophy, precisely the same. The eagerness to cast blame 



NEW YORK CITY, FEBRUARY 27, 1860. 523 

on old England in the one case, and on New England in the otiici-, 
does not disprove the sameness of the two things. 

And how much would it avail you, if you could, hy the use of 
John Brown, Helpers book, and the like, break up the Republican 
organization? Human action can be modified to some extent, but 
human nature cannot be changed. There is a judgment and a feeling 
against slavery in this .nation, which cast at least a million and a 

half of votes! You cannot destroy that judgment and feeling that 

sentiment — by breaking up the political organization which rallies 
around it. You can scarcely scatter and disperse an army which has 
been formed into order in the face of your heaviest fire; but if you 
could, how much would you gain by forcing the sentiment which cre- 
ated it out of the peaceful channel of the ballot-box into some other 
channel? What would that other channel probably be? \Vould the 
number of John Browns be lessened or enlarged by the operation? 

But you will break up the Union, rather than submit to a denial 
of 3'our Constitutional rights. 

That has a somewhat reckless sound; but it would be palliated, 
if not fully justified, were we proposing, by the mere force of num- 
bers to deprive you of some right, plainly written down in the Con- 
stitution. But we are proposing no such thing. 

When you make these declarations, you have a specific and well- 
understood allusion to an assumed Constitutional right of yours, to 
take slaves into the Federal Territories, and to hold them there as 
property. But no such right is specifically written in the Constitu- 
tion. That instrument is literally silent about any such right. We, 
on the contrary, deny that such a right has any existence in the Con- 
stitution, even by implication. 

Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is, that you will destroy the 
Government unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Con- 
stitution as 3'ou please, on all points in dispute between 3'ou and u>. 
You will rule or ruin in all events. This, plainly stated, is N'our lan- 
guage to us. 

Perhaps you will say that the Supreme Court has decided the 
disputed Constitutional question in your favor. Not quite so. But 
waiving the lawyer's distinction between dictum and decision, the 
court have decided the question for you in a sort of way. The court 
have substantially said it is 30ur Constitutional right to take slaves 
into the Federal Territories, and to hold them there as property. 

When I say the decision was made in a sort of way, T mean it 
was- made in a divided court, by a bare majority of the judges, and 



524 SPEECH nF LINCOLN. 

tluy not quite agreeing witii one another in the reasons for making 
il. thai it is so made as tliat its avoweij supporters disagree with 
one ant)lher about its meaning; and thai it was mainly based upon 
a mistaken statement of fact — the statement in tiie opinion that 
•• the riglit of property in a shive is distinctly an<l expressly allirnit-tl 
in the Constitution. ' 

An inspection of the Constitution will show that the right of 
property in a slave is not distinctly and expressly affirmed in it. 
IJear in mind that the judges do not pledge their judicial opinion 
that such right is implicitly allirmcd in the Constitution; but they 
pledge their veracity that it is distinctly and expressly allirmed 
there — "distinctly " — that is, not mingled with anything else — 
'•expressly'" — that is, in words meaning just that, without the ai<l 
of any inference, and susceptible of no other meaning. 

If they had only pledged their judicial opinion, that such right 
is adirmed in the instrument by implication, it would be open to 
others to show that neither the word "slave" nor " slavery '" is to 
Ite found in the Constitution, nor the word "property " even, in any 
connection with language alluding to the things slave or slavery ; 
and that wiierever, in that instrument, the slave is alluded to, he is 
called "a person;"' and wherever his master's legal right in relation 
to him is alluded to, it is spoken of as " service or labor which may 
be due," — as a debt payable in service or labor. 

Also, it would be open to show, l)}- contemporaneous history, that 
this mode of alluding to slaves and slavery, instead of speaking of 
them, was employed on purpose to exclude from the Constitution 
the idea that there could be property in man. 

To show all this is easy and certain. 

"When this obvious mistake of the judges shall be brought to 
their notice, is it not reasonable to expect that they will withdraw 
the mistaken statement, and reconsider the conclusion based upon it? 

And then it is to be rciiiciiiltcrcd that " our fathers, who framed 
the Government under which we live" — the men who made the 
Constitution — dccid<'(| this same Constitutional (piestion in our 
favor, long ago : (U'cided it without division among themselves 
when making the dt'cisi<m ; without division among themselves 
alK)ut the meaning of it after it was made ; and, so far as any evi- 
dence is left, without basing it upon any mistaken statemi-nt of 
fuctw. 

Cnder all these circumstances, do you really feel yourselves jus- 
tifi<<l I.I bn-ak up this (Jovernment, unless such a court decision as 



NEW YORK CITY, FEBRUARY 27. 1860. 



al'.) 



yours is, shall be at once submitted to as a conclusive and final rule 
of political action? But you will not abide the election of a Republi- 
can President. In that supposed event,' you say, you will destroy 
the Union, and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyeil 
it will be upon us ! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to 
my ear, and mutters through his teeth, =' Stand and deliver, or I 
shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer! " To be sure, what 
the robber demanded of me — my money — was my own, and I had 
a clear right to keep it; but it was no more my own than my vote is 
my own; and the threat of death to me, to extort my money, and 
the threat of destruction to the Union, to extort my vote, can 
scarcely be distinguished in principle. 

"A FEW WORDS NOW TO REPUl'.LICANS. " 

It is exceedingly desirable that all parts of this great confeder- 
acy shall be at peace, and in harmony, one with another. Let us 
Republicans do our part to have it so. Even though much pro- 
voked, let us do nothing through passion and ill temper. Even 
though the Southern people will not so much as listen to us, let us 
calmly consider their demands, and yield to them if, in our delibei- 
ate view of our duty, we possibly can Judging by all they say 
and do, and by the subject and nature of their controversy with us, 
let us determine, if we can, what will satisfy them. 

Will they be satisfied if the Territories be unconditionally sur- 
rendered to them? We know they will not In all their ju'eseut 
complaints against us, the Territories are scarcely mentioned. In 
vasions and insurrections are the rage now. Will it satisfy them if, 
in the future, we have nothing to do with invasions and insurrec- 
tions? We know it will not. We so know because we know we 
never had anything to do with invasions and insurrections; and yet 
this total abstaining does not exempt us from the charge and the 
denunciation. 

The question recurs. What will satisfy them? Simply this: We 
must not only let them alone, but we must, somehow, convince 
them that v.e do let them aione. This, we know by experience, is 
no easy task. We have been so trying to convince them from the 
very beginning of our organization, but with no success. In all 
our platforms and speeches, we have constantly protested our pur- 
pose to let them alone; but this has had no tendency to convince 
thi in. Alike unavailing to convince them is the fact that they have 
never detected a man of us in any attem})t 1<> disturb thcin. 



niT, SrtlXll OF LINCOLN. 

Tlu'si* naiunil uiul iippurcntly acU'quato means all failing, what 
will convinci' tlu'iu? This, and tins only. CV'ase to call slavtTV 
wrong, and join them in calling it right. And this must be done 
thoroughly — done in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be 
tolerated — we must place ourselves avowedl}- with them. Senator 
Douglas's new sedition law must be enacted and enforced, suppres- 
sing all declarations that slavery is wrong, whether made in politics, 
in presses, in pulpits, or in private. \Vc must arrest and return 
their fugitive slaves with greedy pleasure. We must pull down our 
Free State Constitutions. The whole atmosphere must be disin- 
fected from all taint of opposition to slavery, before they will cease 
to believe that all their troubles proceed from us. 

I am quite aware they do not state their case precisely in this 
wav. Most of them would pnjbably say to us, "Let us alone, do 
nothing to us, and say what you please about slavery." But we do 
let them alone — have never disturbed them — so that, after all, it 
is what we .sny which dissatisfies them. The}' will continue to ac- 
cuse us of ifniiif/ until we cease xiti/inij. 

I am also aware the}' have not, as yet, Tn terms, deniainled tli«* 
overthrow of <»ur Free State Constitulions. Vet those Constitutions 
declare the wrong (tf slavery with more solemn emphasis than do all 
other sayings again.st it ; and when all these other sayings shall have 
been silenced, the ovt-rlhrow of these Constitutions will be demauiled, 
and nothing be left to resist the demand It is nothing to the con- 
trary that they do not demand the whole of this just now Demand- 
ing what they do, and for the reason they do, they can voluntarily 
stop nowhere short of this.consummation. Holding, as they do, that 
shivery is morally right and socialU' elevating, they can not cease 
to demand a full national recognition of it as a legal right and a 
social blessing. 

Nor can we justifiably withhold this on any ground, save our 
conviction that slavery is wrong. If slavery is right, all words, 
acts, laws, and Constitutions against it, are themselves wrong, and 
should be silenced and swejjt away. If it is right, y,o can not justly 
object to its nationality — its universalit} : if it is wrong, they can 
not justly insist upon its extension — its enlargement All they 
ask we could readily grant, if we thought slavery right ; all we 
ask they could as readily grant, if they thought it wrong 

Their thinking it right, :iinl our thinking it wrong, is the precise 
fact upon which depemls the whole controversy Thinking it right, 
»s th<*y do, Ihey are not to blame for desiring its fidl recognition, 



NEW YORK CITY. FEBRUARY 27, 1860. 527 

as being riglit; but thinking it wrong, as we do, can we yield to 
them? Can we cast our votes with their view and against our own? 
in view of our moral, social, and political responsibilities, can we 
do this ? 

Wrong as we think slavery is, we can yet :i(Tord to let it alone 
where it is, because that much is due to the necessity arising 
from its actual presence in the nation; but can we, while our votes 
will prevent it, allow it to spread into the national Territories, and 
to overrun us here in these Free States? 

If our sense of duty forbids this, then let us stand by our duty 
fearlessly and effectively. Let us be diverted by none of those 
sophistical contrivances wherewith we are so industriously plied and 
belabored — contrivances such as groping for some middle ground 
between the right and the wrong, vain as the search for a man who 
should be neither a living man nor a dead man ; such as a policy of 
"don't care" on a question about which all true men do care; 
such as Union appeals, beseeching true Union men to yield to dis- 
unionists, reversing the Divine rule, and calling, not. the sinners, 
but the righteous to repentance ; — such as invocations to Washing- 
ton — imploring men to unsay what Washington said and undo 
what Washington did. 

Neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accusations 
against us, nor frightened from it by menaces of destruction to the 
Government, nor of dungeons to ourselves. 

Let us have faith that right makes might ; and in that faith let 
us to the end dare to do our duty as we understand it. 



LIN( OL.N AM) TllK .^I'UlNCiFlKi.l) J'UKAC'llKKS. 

From lliiliiiid'n " Life of Abraham rjnrn/u." 

Mr. Newton Batcmtm, Superintendent of I'lihlic Instruction for 
the State of Illinois, occupiccl a room adjoining and opening into 
tlie Kxeeutive Chainher. Freciuentiy this door was open during Mr. 
Lincoln's n-ceptions ; and throughout the seven months or more of 
his occupation, Mr. IJateman saw him nearly every da}'. 

Often when Mr. Lincoln was tired he closed his door against all 
intrusic>n, and called Mr. iiateman into his room for a quiet talk. 
On one of these occasions Mr. Lincoln took up a book containing a 
careful canvass of the city of Springfield in which he lived, showing 
the candidate for whom each citizen had declared it his intention 
to vote in the approaching election. Mr. Lincoln s friends had, 
doulitless at his own recjuest, placed the result of the canvass in 
his hands. This was toward the close of October, and only a fiw 
days before the election. Calling Mr. Bateman to a seat at his 
side, having previously locked all the doors, he said: " IjCt us look 
over this Itook. I wish particularly to see how the ministers of 
Springfield are going to vote.'' The leaves wc-re turned, one by 
one, and as the names were examined, Mr. Lincoln frecpiently asked 
if this one and that were not a minister, or an elder, or the mem- 
ber of such or such a church, and sadly expressed his surprise on 
receiving an afllrmative answer. In that manner they went through 
the book, and then he closed it and sat silently and for some min- 
utes regarding a memorandum in pencil which lay before him. At 
length he turned to Mr. Bateman with a face full of sadness, and 
said: " Here are twentj'-three ministers, of different denominations, 
and all of tlitni are against me but three; and here are a great 
many prominent members of the cliurehes, a very large majority 
of wlioni are against me. Mr. Bateman, I am not a Christian — 
<iod knows I would be one — but I have carefull}' read the Bil)le. 
and I do not bo understanil this book; " and he drew from his bosom 
a pocket New Testament. " These men well know, ' he continued, 
"that I am for fn'edom in the Territories, freedom everywhere as 
far as the Constitution and laws will permit, and that jny oppo- 
[W8J 



LI^X"OLN AND THE PREACHERS. 520 

nents are for slavery. They know this, and yet, with this book in 
tlieir hands, in the light of which human bondage cannot live a 
moment, they are going to vote against me. T do not uiidcrstand it 
at all." 

Here Mr. Lincoln paused — pausi'd for long minutes, his feat- 
ures surcharged with emotion. Then he rose :ind walkc-d iq) and 
down the room in the effort to retain or regain his self-possession. 
Stopping at last, he said, with a trembling voice and his cheeks Avet 
with tears: " I know there is a God, and that he hates injustice 
and slavery. I see the storm coming, and 1 know that His hand 
is in it. If He has a place and work for me — and I think He has 

I believe I am ready. I am nothing, but truth is everytiiing. 

I know I am right because I know that liberty is right, for Christ 
teaches it, and Christ is God. I have told them that a house 
divided against itself cannot stand, and Christ and reason say 
the same; and they will find it so. Douglas don't care whether 
slavery is voted up or voted down, but God cares, and humanity 
cares, 'and I care; and with God's help I shall not fail. I may 
not see the end; but it will come, and I shall be vindicated; 
and these men will find that they have not read tlicir Biljles 

aright." 

Much of this was uttered as if he were speaking to himself, and 
with a sad and earnest solemnity of manner impossible to be de- 
scribed. After a pause, he resumed: "Doesn't it appear strange 
that men can ignore the moral aspects of this contest? A revela- 
tion could not make it plainer to me that slavery or the Government 
must be destroyed. The future would be something awful, as I 
look at it but for this rock on which I stand" (alluding to the 
Testament which he still held in his hand), — - especially with the 
knowledcre of how these ministers are going to vote. It seems as 
if God had borne with this thing (slavery) until the very teachers 
of religion have come to defend it from the Bible, and to claim for 
it a divine character and sanction; and now the cup of iniquity 
full, and the vials of wrath will be poured out." 
31 



IS 



LINCOLN'S FIKST INArCiLKAL ADDRESS. 

Ddiccnd Murrh ^, ISGl, at Washinyton. 

Fellow-Citizens of the United States: In compliance with a 
custom as old as the Government itself, 1 appear before 3011 to ad- 
dress you briefly, and to take, in your presence, the oath prescribed 
Ity the (V)nstitntion of the United States to lie taken l>y the Presi- 
dent " before he enters on the executitJii of his ollice."' 

I do not c(msider it necessary, at present, for me to discuss 
those matters of administration about which there is no special 
anxiety or excitement. Apprehension seems to exist among 
the people of the Southern States, that, by the accession of a 
Republican administration, their property, and their peace, and 
personal security, are to be endangered. There has never been any 
reasonable cause for such appreiiension. Indei-d, the most ample 
evidence to the contrary has all the while existed, and been open to 
their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of 
him who now addresses you. 

I do but quote from one of those speeches, wiien I declare that 
"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the insti- 
tution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no 
lawful right U) do so; and I have no inclination to do so." Those who 
nominated and elected me did so with the full knowledge that I had 
made this and man}' similar declarations, and had never recanted 
them. And more than this, they placed in the platform, for my 
acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and 
emphatic resolution which 1 now read: — 

'• /iVWr«'</, Tliat the mjiinti'iiiincc iiiviolali- of tlu' ri^'hls of llic States, 
anil f.sfx-cially tlii' ri^'ht of racli Slalt- to onlfr and control its own domrs- 
tic institutions accrirdin;; to its own judjrnii'Ut rxclusivt-ly, i.s I's.si'ntial to 
that balanci' of iHiwtT oil which thi- perfection and i-ndurancc of our |>oliti- 
cjil fabric di-jM-nd; un<l we di-nouncr tin- lawless invasion by urmed force of 
the soil of any Slate or Territory, mi matter under whut pretext, as amon;j 
Uie fjravest of crimes." 

T now reiterate thcsi- .seiitimenLs; and in doing no 1 only press 
upfiM the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the 

( WM ] 



WASHINGTON, MARCH 4, 1861. 53I 

case is susceptible, tliat the property, peace, and securit}- of no sec- 
tion are to be in anywise endangered by the now incoming adminis- 
tration. 

I add, too, t!ml all the protection, which, consi.stenlly with the 
Constitution and the laws, can be given, will be cheerfully given 

to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever caii.se 

as cheerfully to one section as to another. 

There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives 
from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written 
in the Constitution as any other of its provisions: 

"No person held to service or labor in one State under the laws thereof, 
escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation 
therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered 
up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." 

It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by 
those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; 
aud the intention of the lawgiver is the law. 

All meml)ers of Congress swear their sa[)port to the whole Con- 
stitution — to this provision as well as any other. To the proposi- 
tion, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this 
clause " shall be delivered up," their oaths are unanimous. Now, if 
the}' would make the elTort in good temper, could they not, with 
nearly equal unanimity, frame and pass a law by means of which to 
keep good that unanimous oath ? 

There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be 
enforced by National or by State authority; but surely that ditfer- 
ence is not a very material one. If the slave is to be surrendered, 
it can be of but little consequence to him or to others, iiy which au- 
thority it is done; and should any one, in any case, be content that 
his oath shall go unkept on a merely unsubstantial controversy as 
to how it shall be kept ? 

Again, in any law upon this subject, ought not all the safeguards 
of liberty known in civilized and humane jurisprudence to be intro- 
duced, so that a free man be not, in any case, surrendered as a 
slave ? And might it not be well at the same time to provide by 
law for the enforcement of that clause in the Constitution which 
guarantees that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all 
the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States" ? 

I take the official oath to-day with no mental reservations, and 
with no purpose to construe the Constitution or laws by any hyper- 
critical rules; and while I do not choose now to specif}' particular 



532 LINCOLN'S INAUCiUKAL ADDRESS. 

acts of CoDfjress as proper to be enforced, I do suggest that it will 
lit' much safer for all, both in ollieial and private stations, to con- 
form to and abide by, all those acts wliich stand unrepealed, than to 
vicdate any of theiu trusting to lind impunity in having them held 
to be unconstitutional. 

It is si'V«'nty-two years since the first inauguration of a President 
uinler our national Constitution. During tiiat pcrioil lifttH-n dill'er- 
»nt and very distinguished citizens have, in succession, administered 
the executive branch of the Government. They have conducted it 
through many perils, and generally with great success. Yet, with 
all this scope for precedent, I now enter upon the same task, for the 
brief Constitutional term of four years, under great and peculiar 
dilllculties. 

A disruption of the Federal Union, heretofore only menaced, is 
now formidably attempted. Seven States had already seceded — 
South Carolina, December 20, 18G0; Mississippi, January 9; Florida, 
Januar}' 10 ; Alal)ama, Januar}' 11 ; Georgia, January 19 ; JiOuisi- 
ana, January 2»), and Texas, February 1, 18(!1. I hold that in the 
contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution, the union 
of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not ex- 
pressed, in the fundaiiniilnl law of all national governments. It is 
safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its 
oruMuic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the 
express provisions of our national Constitution, and the Union will 
endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some 
action not provided for in the instrument itself. 

Again, if the United States be not a government proper, l)ul an 
association of States in tiie nature of a contract merely, can it, as a 
contract, be peaceably unmade b}' less than all the parties who 
made it? One party to a contract may violate it — Itreak it, so to 
speak; but does it not recjuire all to lawfully rcst-ind it? Descend- 
ing from these general principles, we find the jjrojjosition that in 
legal contemplation the Union is perpetual, ctjnliiiucd liy the history 
of the Union itself. 

The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, 
in fact, by the Articles of Association, in 1774. It was matured 
and continued I)}' the Declaration of Independence, in 177(). It was 
further mature<l, and the faith <»f all the then thirteen States ex- 
pressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the 
Articles of the Confederation, in 1778; and, llnally, in 1787, one of 
the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution 
was to "form a more perfect union." Hut if the destruction of the 



WASHINGTON, MARCH I, isc.l. r,.vj 

Union by one, or by a part only, of the States be Imu fully possiblr-, 
the Union is less perfect than before — the Constitiiti(.ii liavin<r los'i 
the vital element of perpetuity. 

It follows from these views that no State, upon its own men- 
motion, can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves tuu\ onii- 
nances to that ellect are legally void; aiul that acts of violence 
within any State or States against tiie authority (.f the United 
States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, a(C(,i(liii;4 U) circum- 
stances. 

I therefore consider that, in view of the Constitution and the 
laws, the Union is unbroken ; and, to the extent of my ability, 1 
shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, 
that the laws of the Union shall be faithfully executed in all the 
States. Doing this, which I deem to be only a simple duty on 
my part, I shall perfectly perform it, so far as is practicable, 
unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold 
the requisite means, or in some authoritative manner direct the 
contrary. 

I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the 
declared purpose of the Union that it will Con.stitutionally defend 
and maintain Itself. 

In doing this there need be no bloodshed nor violence, and there 
shall be none unless it is forced upon the national authority. 

The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and pos- 
sess, the property and places belonging to the Government, anu to 
collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary 
for these objects there will be no invasion, no using of force against 
or among the people anywhere. 

Where hostility to the United States shall be so great and so 
universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding 
federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers 
among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may 
exist of the Government to enforce the exercise of these ollices, the 
attempt to do so would be so irritating, and so nearly impracticable 
withal, that I deem it best to forego for the time the uses of such 
offices. 

The mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in all 
parts of the Union. 

So far as possible, the people everywhere shall have that sense 
of perfect security which is most favorable to calm thought and 
reflection. 

The course here indicated will be followed, unless current events 



^•J* LINCOLN-S INAIUJUUAL ADDRF.SIS, 

and experionce shall show ft modification or clianjro to ho i)roper; 
and in vwvy casi' and i-xigt-ncy my lu'st disi-ivtioii will he ex.Mcisi-d' 
acrordinjr to the cirrumstances at'tually existing, and witli u view 
and hoi>f of a peaceful solution of the national tn.ul)k-.s, and tiic 
restoration of fraternal sympathies and airections. 

That there are persons, in one section or another, who seek to 
destroy the Vuum at all ev.nts, and are glad of any pretext to (!<. 
it, I will neither allinn nor deny. Hut if there be such, I need ad- 
ilress no word to them. 

To those, however, who really love the Union, may I not speak? 
Before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of our 
national fabric, with all its benefits, its memories, and its hopes, 
wouUl it not be wise to ascertain precisely why we do it? Will you 
hazard so desperate a step, while there is any possibility that any 
portion of the ills you tly from have no real existence? Will you, 
while the certain ills you lly to are greater than all the real ones 
yon fly from? Will you risk the commission of so fearful a mis- 
take? All profess to be content in the Union, if all Constitutional 
rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right, plainly 
written in the Constitution, has been denied? I think not. llap- 
jMly, the human mind is so constituted that no party can reach to 
the audacity of doing this. 

Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly-written 
provision of the Constitution has ever been denied. If, by the mere 
force of numbers, a majority should deprive a minority of any 
clearly-written Constitutional right, it might, in a moral point of 
view, justify revolution ; it certainly would, if such right were a 
vital one. I>iit such is not our case. 

All the vital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly 
assured to them by allirmations and negations, guaranties and pro- 
hibitions, in the Constitution, that controversies never arise concern- 
ing them. liut no organic law can ever be framed with a provision 
specifically applicable to every question whicli may occur in practi- 
cal administration. No foresight can antieii)ate, nor any dociimi'iit 
of reasonable length contain, express provisions for all jiossible 
questions. Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by nati..u.il (»r 
by State authorities? The Constitution does not expressly say. 
.}fay Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories ? The Constitution 
dm-s not expressly say, M,>st Congress protect slavery in the Terri- 
tories? The Constitution does not expressly say. From questions 



WASHINGTON. MARCH 1, ISni 535 

of lliis class, spring all our Constitutional controversies, and we 
divide upon them into majorities and minorities. 

If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the 
Government must cease. Tluro is no alternative for contiiiuin<r tlie 
Government without acquiescence on the one side or on the oth( r. If 
a minority in such a case will secede rather than actpiiesc-e, thev 
make a precedent, which, in turn will divide and ruin them ; for a 
minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majorit) 
refuses to be controlled by such minority. 

For instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy, a 
year or two hence, arbitrarily secede again, precisely as i)ortions of 
the present Union now claim to secede from it? All who cherisli 
disunion sentiments are now being educated to the exact temper of 
doing this. Is there such perfect identity of interests among the 
States to compose a new Union as to produce harmony only, and 
prevent renewed secession? 

Plainly, the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. 
A majority held in restraint by Constitutional checks and limitations, 
and always changing easily Avith delilierale clir.nges of iM)|)uhir 
opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. 
Whoever rejects it, does, of necessity, fly to anarchy or to despot- 
ism. Unanimity is impossible; the rule of a minority, as a perma- 
nent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible. So that, rejecting the 
majority principle, anarchy or despotism, in some form, is all that 
is left. 

I do not forget the position assumed by some that Constitutional 
questions are to l)e decided by the Supreme Court, nor do T deny 
that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to 
a suit, as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to a 
very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases b}' all other 
departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possi- 
ble that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the 
evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with 
the chance that it maj^ be overruled and never l)ecome a precedent 
for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a differ- 
ent practice. 

At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the 
policy of the Government, upon vital questions affecting the whole 
people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, 
the instant they are made, as in ordinary litigation between parties 



5:{r. LINCOLN'S lNAT'(;rKAI. ADDKKSS. 

in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own 
rulers, liavinj; to that extent practically r('si<^iKMi tlicir (jovernmcut 
into the iianils of that eiiiliieiit trihiiiial. 

Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the 
judges. It is a duty from which tliey maj' not slirinU, to decide 
oases properly Itroii^dit before them; and it is no fault of theirs if 
others seek to turn their ilei-isions to political purposes. 

One section of our country believes slavery is right, and ought 
to be extended, while tlie other believes it is wrong, and ought not 
to be extended. This is the onl}' substantial dispute. The fugi- 
tive-slave clause of the Constitution, and the law for the suppres- 
fiion of the foreign slave trade, are each as well enforced, i^erhaps, 
as any law can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the 
people imperfectly supports the law itself. The great bod}' of the 
people abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a few 
break over in each. This, I think, cannot be perfectly cured ; and 
it would be worse, in both cases, after the separation of the sections, 
than before. The foreign slave trade, now imperfectl}' suppressed 
would be ultimately revived, without restriction, in one section; 
while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be 
surrendered at all by the other. 

Physically speaking, we cannot .separate. "We cannot remove our 
respective sections from each other, nor build an impas.sable wall 
between them. A husband and wife may be divorced, and go out of 
the presence and beyond the reach of each other ; but the ditferent 
parts of our country cannot do this. They cannot but remain face 
to face; and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue 
between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse 
more advantageous or more satisfactory after separation than be- 
fore? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? 
Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws 
can among friends? Suppose 3'ou go to war, you cannot fight al- 
ways; and when, after much loss on both sides, and no gain (»n 
either, you cease fighting, the identical questions as to terms of in- 
tercourse are again upon you. 

This country, with its institutions, belongs to the peoi)le who 
inhabit it. Wlienever they shall grow weary of the existing (Jov- 
ernment, they can exercise their Constitutional right of amending it, 
or their revolutiojiary right to dismem])cr or overthrow it. I cannot 
be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citi^iens are 
desirous of having the national Constitution amended. While I 



WASHINGTON, MARCH 4, 1861. 537 

make no recommendation of aiiiciKlnu'iil, I lully recoi^niize llie full 
authority of the people over tlie whole subject, to hv exercised in 
either of the modes pre.seril)ed in the instrument itself ; and I 
should, under existing circumstances, favor rather than oppose a 
fair op[)ortunity being afforded the people to act upon it. 

I will venture to add that to me the convention mode seems 
preferul)le, in that it allows amendments to originate! with the peo- 
ple themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject 
propositions originated by others not especially chosen for the pur- 
pose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish 
either to accept or refuse. I understand that a proposed amend- 
ment to the Constitution (which amendment, however, 1 have not 
seen) has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government 
shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, 
including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction 
of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of par- 
ticular amendments, so far as to say that, holding such a provision 
to now bo implied Constitutional law, I have no objection to its 
being mn.de express and irrevocable. 

The chief magistrate derives all his authority from the people, 
and they have conferred none upon him to fix terms for the sepa- 
ration of the States. The people themselves, alone, can do this if 
they choose ; but the executive, as such, has nothing to do with it. 
His duty is to administer the present Government, as it came to his 
hands, and to transmit it, unimpaired by him, to his successor. Why 
should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of 
the people? Is there any better or equal hope in the world? In 
our present difl'erences is either party without faith <.f Ijeing in the 
right? 

If the Almighty Ruler of nations, with his eternal truth and jus- 
tice, be on your side of the North, or on j-ours of the South, that truth 
and that justice will surely prevail by the judgment of this great 
tribunal, the American people. By the frame of the Government 
under which we live, this same people have wisely given their public 
servants but little power for mischief ; and have, with equal wisdom, 
provided for the return of that little to their own hands at very 
short intervals. While the people retain their virtue and vigilance, 
no administration, by any extreme of wickedness or folly, can very 
seriously injure the Government in the short space of four years. 

My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well upon this 
whole subject. Nothing valuable can be lost by taking time. 



538 LINCOLN'S INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 

If then' van hv an ol)jeet to luirrv any of you, in hot haste, to 
a step whieh you would never take deliberately, that ohjeot will he 
frustratetl l>y takiutx time: hut no <;oo(l oI)ieet ean he frustrated 
by it. 

tSueh of you as are now dissatisfied, still have the old Constitu- 
tion unimpaired, and, on the sensitive point, the laws of your own 
framing under it; while the new administration will have no imme- 
diate power, if it would, to change either. 

If it were admitted that you who are dissatislied hold the right 
side in the dispute, there is still no single good rea.son for ))recipitate 
action. Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance 
on Him who has never yet forsaken this favcjred land, are still com- 
petent to adjust, in the best way, all present didiculties. 

In 3'our bands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrj'men, and not in 
mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The (lovernment will 
not assail you. 

You can have no conflict without being 3'ourselves the aggressors. 
You have no oath registered in heaven to destro}' the Government; 
while I shall have the most solemn one to preserve, protect, and de- 
fend it. 

I am loth to close. We are not enemies, hut friends. AVe 
mus;t not l)e enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must 
not hn':ik, our ])onds of ali'ection. 

The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle field 
and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over 
this broad land, v/ill yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again 
touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature. 



ADDRESS OF PRESIDENT LLNCUEX 

At the Dedication of the Oettysburr/ National Cemetery, X<>rernhrr If), 1SC3. 

Fourscore Jind seven years ago our fathers brought forward on 
this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dccbcated, to 
the proposition that all men are created equal. 

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing wlieliier that 
nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long en- 
dure. We are met on a great biittle-field of that war. "We liave 
come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place for 
those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is 
altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. 

But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate — we cannot conse- 
crate — we cannot hallow — this ground. The brave men, living 
and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it far above our 
poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long 
remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they 
did here. It is for us, the living, rather, to be dedicated here to 
the unfinished work Avhich they who fought here have thus far §o 
nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the 
great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we 
take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last 
full measure of devotion ; that we here highly resolve th.at these 
dead shall not have died in vain ; that this nation, under God, 
shall have a new birfli of freedom ; and that government of the 
people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the 
earth. 



[539] 



LINCOLN'S SECOND LNALdlKAL ADDRESS. 

Dtlirrrfii .Vitrrfi 4, 1S<'>.'>, nt Wa*hington. 

Fellow-Countuymkn: At this soooiul appcarint:; to take the 
oath of the Pn'sulential oUlee, theiv is less oeeasiou for an extended 
address than there was at the first. Then a statement, somewhat in 
(U'tail, of a conrse to be pnrsued, seemed very fittinij and proper. 
Xo>v, at the expiration of four veal's, during whieh pul)lic d'-c-hu-.i- 
tions have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of 
the great contest whieh still absorbs the attt^ntioa and engrosses the 
energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. 

The progress of our arms, upon which all else chietly depends, 
is as well known to the public as to myself; and it is, I trust, rea- 
simably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for 
the future, no pretlictiou in regard to it is ventured. 

On the occasion corresponding to this, four years ago, all 
thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All 
dreaded it; all sought to avoid it. While the inaugural address 
was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving 
the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the cit}' seeking to 
destroy it without war — seeking to dissolve the Union and divide 
the effects by negotiation. IJoth parties deprecated war; but one 
of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the 
other would accept war rather t!>rin let it perish. And the war came. 

One eighth o{ the whole po|)ulation were colored slaves, not dis- 
tributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part 
of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar ami powerful interest. 
All knew that this interest was somelu»w the cause of the war. To 
strengthen, pt-rpetuate, and exteiul this interest, was the object for 
which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the 
(lovemment claimed no right to do more than to restrict the Terri- 
torial enlargement of it. 

Neither party expei'te.l for the war the magnitmle or the dura- 
tion which it has already attiiined. Neither anticipated that the 
cauHC of the conflict might cease with, or even before, the conflict 
[510] 



WASH I N(, 'ION, MAIl' ii i |>v;:,. r,|j 

iiHcW hUouUI (•asm;. K;u;)i look«-<l for :ni ....•-• Iriiirupli, :ui'I a ne- 
sult liiHH fiiMdain<!n1,!il and aMtoiindin^' 

IJo1.li n;ad t.)i(! h:uii<; iJildf; and pray U, the haiij<; (io<], and «'a«;h 
invok<;H lii.s aid af/ai/ihl, tin- otln-r. It njay w«'Mi Htran(4«r that any 
mitn Hhoiild dare to ank a jiint (UxVh u.nHiHt'dU(o. in wringing tliifir 
bread from the Hweat of other rnenw faeen, hut let iih judge not, 
that we be not judged. Tin; prayern of JKjth eoiild not Im; an^w«nd. 
That of neither han been answered fully. The Almighty haM hiH 
own purpowes. ' < \Vo(j unto the world beeauwi of olfenwH! for it munt 
needH be that olfen.seH come; but woe Ui that man by whom the of- 
fense eomdh.' rf we Hhall KU[*p';w; that Ameriean Hlavi-ry in one 
of those oHetises, whieh, in the providenfre of God, muHt needn eome, 
but which, having c^mtinued through his appoinUfd time, he now 
wills to remove, and that he given Ut IkAIi North and H^MJth thin 
terrible war as the woe due Uj thow; by whom the olfenw; eame. 
shall we discern therein any departure from lho.se divine attribut(5« 
which the believers in a living Ood always ascriU; to him? 

Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty 
scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it 
continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred 
and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every 
drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid with another drawn 
with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it 
must be said, " The Judgments of the Lord are true and righteous 
altogether." 

With malice toward none; with chanty for all •, with firmness 
in the right, as God gives us to see the right ; let us strive on to 
finisn tne work we are in ; to bind up the nation's wounds ; to care 
for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and 
orphan.?- to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and a 
lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations. 



INDEX. 



Abolition, principles of, must bo main- 
tained, or Democratic principles must 
carry, 98; only one way in which sla- 
very can be abolished, lOIJ, 104. 

Abolition Societies, 104. 

Abolitionists, will not fight to free the 
slaves. Doufjlas, 103; oppose Kansas- 
Nebraska bill, 166. 

Alabama, formerly owned by Georgia, 
2; secession of, 533. 

Allied Army, of the Republican party and 
administration men, Douglas on, 73; 
object of. 73; Lincoln's denial of, 7."), 76. 

Amalgamation, of r;ices, evils of, Douglas 
on, 111, 113, 141. 

American Tract Society, shaken by the sla- 
very a^'itatioti, 441. 

" Appeal to the People," 39. 

Arkansas, formerly part of Louisiana Ter- 
ritory, 4; south of Missouri Com- 
promise line, 4; admitted as a Slave 
State, 4. 

Authority, mere precedent a dangerous 
sou ice of, 43. See also Judicial De- 
cisions. 

Bancroft, George, references to his History 
of Ihe Formation of the Constitution. 
29, 91; reference to his History of the 
United States, 29. 

Bank of United States, unconstitutionality 
of, 373, 374. 

Bible, quoted, 91, .'541; attempt to estab- 
lish slavery from, 489. 490. 

Black Republicans, 167, 168. See also Re- 
PUBi-iCAN Party. 

Brooks, Preston S., of South Carolina, on 
the ultimate extinction of slavery. 
153, li54. 3,55. 

John Brown, not a Republican. 530; his 
effort to fii'c liie slaves peculiar. .")33. 

Buchanan, James, President of United States, 
Lincoln cli;irges liiui with being a con- 
spirator to nationalize slavery, .53-.")9. 
197, 210, 330, 3.31, 304 ct xeq., .389; quarrels 
with Douglas over Lecornpton Con- 
stitution, 357, 421 et seq.; letter of, ac- 
cepting the nomination for the presi- 
dency, 403. 

Calhoun, John C, on the right of people of 
United States Territories to form con- 
stitutions, ,78; denied the ruth of 



equality clause in Declaration of In- 
dependence, 432. 

California, part of Me.xican acquisition, 
6; prohibited from entering the Union 
because opjxised to slavery, li; enters 
as a Free State, 7; entrance as ii Free 
State was a part of the IKV) Compro- 
mise, 7; why kept out of ttie Union for 
months, :t5. 

Capital and Labor. Lincoln on. .50:1 ."i06. 

Campbell, Thompson, views on slavery. 201, 
3('i:.'. 

Cass, General Lewis, on the Chase amend- 
Miiiit to tliL- Nebraska bill. I'.W. 209. 

Chaffie, Rev. Dr.. owner of Dred Scott, 3ft"), 
eui.mcipiites Dred Scott, :U\\ 

Charter of Freedom, white man's. In dan- 

•AVV. 31. 

Chase, Salmon P.. amendment to Kansas- 
Nebraska bill. l!is. 207-211. 214. 

Cincinnati Platform, 72, 87, 98, l.iC, 157, 192, 
3S0, 363. 403-404. 

Civil War, there will never be one, Doug- 
las's view, 103; Lincoln did not intend 
that the people of the Free States 
should enter the Southern States and 
interfere with slavery, 102; Douglas 
opposed to organizing a Northern sec- 
tional party, 103; Douglas ai-cuses 
Lincoln of advocating. 116, 12.s; Lin- 
coln does not desin- lo kindle. 183. 

Clay, Henry, Lincoln. dei.-lares liiniself to 
have been his life-long friend, ;18; 
Douglas was an enemy of, -V*; su]>- 
ported the Missouri Compromise, i'^; 
Douglas relates death-lied sci-ne, 117; 
statement of, as to how slavery en- 
tered the Colonies, 157; Lincoln de- 
scribes the death-bed scene, l.V<: on 
slavery. 193; on slavery in District <»f 
Columbia, 30;i; leader of the Union 
men in lff49-'r>0, 2.39, 240, IKHi :W; the 
Colonization Society and slavery, '.VU; 
on equality clause in Declaration of 
Independence, 410, 411, 4;i3, 4:14; and 
Lincoln. 4.30 ct xc*;. 

Climate, influence of. on slavery. 10. 

Colonies, how slavery entered the. l.'i". 

Compromise of 1850, analysis of. 7; en- 
dorsed by Democrats and Whigs as a 
•• liuality " of slavery (luestiou. 7. 10.5, 

[3431 



:tu 



IXDKX. 



1(W, i'lT; prlnolplo of oqnlvnlonts In, i:t, 
U; wlillc Lliu-oln fiiilorsiil tlii". 14, l.">; 
I)i>u>;las vliiUlfutos, IC; illcl in»t n-pnil 
tlif MlsMjtirl t'omproiiiLsf, i')7; uttoiiipt 
to tun-v Kansas In under Let'onipton 
(Uiiistitution, a »;r<is.s vWilatlon of prln- 
clplo cniini-iatcd Ity, ;cts; did not con- 
tain tlif princlpk' of tlio Nebraska 
l.lll. :i,-.l. 

Connecticut, f<^>rtnerly owned part of 
Olilo, L'; alM)llilon of slavery In, 417. 

Congress. See l'. S. Conuuess. 

Congressional. See l'. S. <'(>Nt;itKSS. 

Conspiracy to nationalize slavery. Lin- 
coln'-, speecli at ."^prlnj;ll»'l<l on. .'C .">li; 
l>ou^'lits replies to Lincoln's cliafKe 
of, IX et *(•<;., i:u, ;J04 .Irti, 3rt); to 
make slavery " jjerpi-liial, national, 
and universal." Lincoln. I.VI .lli(); tlic 
cliar;;i' of conspiracy a fair ojie, Lin- 
«'oln. ls't-ls«>; U'tween President Pierce. 
President lUiclianan. the .ludpesof tlie 
Supreme Court, and Stephen A. Dou;;- 
las, ilO ft .s((/. 

Constitution. Sie l'. S. ('(institittion. 

Correspondence, between Lim-oln and 
l»<in'_'l,i>, cuuceruluK the jt)lnt debates, 
li'.t 11.4. 

Crittenden-Montgomery Bill, to refer the Li- 
compton Constitution back to the peo- 
ple of Kansas. G:.'; supported by Re- 
publii-ans. '.Hi. VSk 

Critienden, John J., of Kentucky, opposed 
Lecoiiiptoii Constitution. '.»i. IZ'}. 

Curtis. Judge B. R., on the ne^iro's jjart In 
franiin;; the T'. S. Constitution, 4.'>; 
opinion of. in the Dred Scott t-ase. 4.'). 

Davis, Jeflerson, on slavery in the Tei-ri- 
tories. 4:r>. 

Debates between Lincoln and Douglas, con-e- 
s|).in(leri imcci niiiL'. lill-liH. 

Decisions. See .Ir nu i \i. KKtisio.NS. 

Decbralicn of Independence, Liiimln mi: 
vlol.iieil by repeal <.f Missouri Com- 
promisi', h. 0; ei|iiullty cluu.se In, ill. 47; 
"let us readopt the," :ci; "sni-eredal. 
and construed, and liawketl at," 4*1; 
e(|nallty cl.-iuse In, to be ii stiini- 
bliii;; bliH-k lo all who would brln^' 
desiMitism, 4^•, .ludtre Douglas's "ver- 
sion" of, 4U; Contains the suKKcstlon 
of tlie Individual rights of nuin, 4!l; 
shall It be frittered awayV 49; "pop- 
ular sovereignly" orl^'lnaled In, Ts; 
what the worils nu-an to forel;;n«'rs In 
the I'niled Stales, Mt; <»bject of fourth 
of ,luly celebrations, m»; If «)n<> suy. 
the e<|uallty clause In It does not mean 
nejfro. " why not another say It <I«m's 
not nii'an some other nuin V " INI; nuike 
exceptions to Its e(|u:illty clause and 
where will you stop'' ""•: rights ac- 
CortitMl Ut uutcrous by. 1511, 100; ue^roes 



entiiled to all the ri^rhts enumenited 
therein, l.s(i; Douglas muzzles the 
cannon which thunders its joyous 
return, l!i:j. IIH; In the rlt;ht of the In- 
ferior races to life. lIlMrty. and the 
pursuit of happiness, tln'y are our 
ei|uals, :t.'i:3. 

Declaration of Independence. hmiijluM idi : 
e<|uality clause In, me.int ecjual to 
Hrltlsh subject.s, 4s, 4ii; meaidiiK of 
equality clause In, 111 110. i:w-141; 
eiiuallty clause according; to Lincoln. 
i:iii; only Included the white people. 
140; e(iualily clause In, ha<l no rifer- 
ence to the nej:ro, l!lit-:iVi; review of 
Lincoln's iKJsition on, .(10, :j4.l ct Mq.; 
sIkihts of, never dreamed of the neRro 
when writinii, .'I4ti; Lincoln's falslficu- 
tion of, :i!»:'; sifrners of, had no refer- 
ence to the ne};ro. 4"^). 

Declaration of Independence, "u self-evi- 
tlent lie." ;(1. 4:t:.'; not made by or for 
ne;rroes. Chief Justice Taney, 44; 
Henry Clay on equality clause, 410, 
411, 4:t;i, 4:i4. 

Democratic Party, endorse the 1S.V) Com- 
prondse, 7. lUV 100; have no answer on 
the I'tah i>olyj?amy self-f;overnment 
(|uestion, 40. 41 ; no such thiiiL,' as " Free 
State Democrats" In Kansas. 42; the 
loftlc of their position on slavery 
meant aiual^:imation, r>0, ol ; "rulon- 
savers,".'"):i; did not defeat the Lecomi>- 
ton Constitution, 79, 80; division in, 
9S; either abolition o."tlemocratic prin- 
ciples must no down, iW; Cincinnati 
platform, only authoritative declara- 
tion of jjrlnciples of, 9S; ctjndition of 
the party In IsVs '.»s 100; bolting I)euu> 
crat.s, Sii); tlid not i-onsider itself bound 
by the Supreme Court decision in the 
National bank case. l.'iO; Its ])ositioii 
on slaviry prior to l.s">4, 2:ki, ::40. ;«Vi-:i05t; 
some Democratic resolutions as to 
slavery. iMl-aXi; convention at NaiK-r- 
vllle, 111., endorses " Wllniot Proviso" 
and thinks all nieti should be fre4', ^14; 
a fundamental article of the Demo- 
cratic creed that ther«' should lie niui- 
Interference and non-lntervi-ntlon 
with slavery In the St;ites or Terri- 
tories, iNi; rejiudlate and abandon the 
Kn^llsh bill, .MO. 4:i.'; <lo not allow that 
there Is any thin); wronj; In shivery, 
■XV,. 44 I. 

Despotism, detinitlon of, 'X; e<|uallty 
clause In Declaration of Independ- 
ence a slumblln)i-l>l(»ck to all who 
would brlnj;. 4s; unlforndty the pa- 
rent of. OS. 

District of Cjlumbia. slavi-ry In. 7; abol- 
ished by Compromise of KMI, 7; Con- 
Kre.ss on slavery in, 14; Liucolu uot, 



INDEX. 



545 



pledged to aljolition of slavery in, 201 ; 
Lincoln's wish for abolition of slavery 
in, 203. 

Divine Right of Kings, iirfjuments in helialf 
<if. coiiipMifd Willi aiKuments for Kaii- 
sa.s-Ncl)raska bill. :i4; arKumcnts for, 
that it was best for the peojjle, !K); the 
common rijjht of humanity, and the. 
t((l. 

Dictum,. ')2;i. 

Douglass. Fred, 217, 21S. 

Dred Scott, emancipated, ;J0."); ownership 
of. :js'.t. 

Dred Scott Decision, Lincoln on: declares 
that a ncijio cannot sue in a United 
States Couit, 42; declares that Con- 
gress cannot prohiliit slavery in the 
Territories, 43; made by a divided 
court, 42; should not bo resisted, 42. 
43,334,385; erroneous, 42; arraignment 
of, 43; all precedents against it, 44; 
based on assumed historical facts. 44; 
asserts that the Declaration of In- 
dependence and the United Stales 
Constitution were not made by or for 
negroes; 44; Judge Curtis's dissenting 
opinion, as to United States Constitu- 
tion being made by and for negroes, 
44, 45; e(iuality clause in Declaration 
of Independence meant negroes, 45-47; 
what kind of a decision Kepublicans 
wanted, .50; history of the case 53, 54; 
logic of, .55; dec^lared that neither Con- 
gross nor a Territorial or State legis- 
lature could exclude slavery from a 
Territory or State, 57, 147, 2G7, another 
Dred Scott decision, 57, 58, 187, 191, 194, 
3o2; not to Ije obeyed as a political 
rule, 84; will try to secure reverse of, 
85; position of Lincoln on, 15;")-158; is 
it a very small matter, an abstrac- 
tion? 1.57, 1.58; " What I am going to do 
with it," 1.58; not necessary to set up 
a court of negroes to break influence 
of, 158; why Judge Douglas clings to 
it, 193; does not properly construe the 
Constitution, 370; essence of the de- 
<;ision, 361; would establish slavery in 
the Territories, .379; consequences of 
the, 379-381; how we are going to re- 
verse it, 408-411; the three points de- 
cided in the case, 429, 4.30; if correct, to 
hold slaves in the Territory is a con- 
stitutional right, 448 ct scq.; result, if 
pressed to logical conclusion, 400; ef- 
fect upon slavery in Territories, 474- 
476; "the whole Dred Scott Decision," 
474-476; and the Fifth Amendment to 
the United States C'onstitution, 515, 
5l(;. See V. S. Supreme Court. 

Dred Scott Decision. Douglas on: denun- 
ciation of alr^ho question correctness 
of, 42; arraignment of Lincoln's posi- 

3") 



tlon f)n, 09, 70, i:il -!:»<, 249-2.52, .372 
etscq.; ilie elrcuinstaiices In the caso. 
lOfi; what Lincoln meant by revers- 
ing it, KKi; answer to Lincoln's argu- 
ment that under the Dred Bcolt 
dei-isiun slavery would enter the 
Terriioiies, im ill; did „ot alTect tho 
practical side of the slavery question 
in the Territories, 110; to whom will 
Fvincoln appeal? 132, 1.34; theoretical 
(juestion raised, unworthy of consld- 
I'ratlon, i:«i; its legal elTeet to deprive 
the m-gro of his rights of citizenship, 
136 ct ncq.; case not on Supreme Court 
docket when Nebraska bill passed, 2:t0; 
analysis (.f, 3'.Hi 400; no appeal from It 
this side of lu'aven, 397. 

Emancipation, laws practically prohlbit- 
iii'.;. 45; none taken i)lace since Free 
St)il party was organize<l. 104. 

English Bill, provisions of, W, 338, 3:J9; 
biisis of Douglas's opposition to, 94; 
violated principles of e(iualily among 
States, 95; when it be(;:irae law, 95, 121; 
the Lecompton Constitution " In 
cooked-up form," 149; Lincoln ques- 
tions Douglas concerning his attitude 
toward, 266; a substitute for tho Le- 
compton Constitution, 33><; a test of 
political orthodoxy, 3:58; a test In 
Illinois, 340; repudiated and aban- 
doned by tho Democratic party, 340. 

Equality, of all men can save the Union 
and make it worthy of being saved, 
32; points of, between negroes and 
whites, 47; tho Fathers did not place 
all white men on an e(|uality, 47; 
meaning of equality clause in the 
Declaration of Independence, 47, 48; 
lot us have, as nearly as we can, 91; 
among States of the United States 
a cardinal principle. 94, 339; right 
of the negro to be on an equality with 
tho white man, a divine right, 112; 
negroes equal to whites, 139; " who 
shall say, 'I am the superior'?" 1.59; 
the negro not equal to the white man, 
173, 174; Lincoln's whole idea on, 178- 
ISO; of blacks and whites, Judge 
Mayo's views on. 264, 2(j5; views of 
Colonel Richard M. Johnson on, 3.S4; 

Fathers of the United States Constitution, op- 
posed to carrying slavery into new 
United States Territories, 29; objected 
to slavery, only admitted it as a neces- 
sity, 29, 30; blamed nritish king for in- 
troducing slavery, 29; foreboro U) use 
tlie words "slave" or "slavery" in U. 
S. Constitution, 29; spirit of *76 and 
spirit of Nebraska antagonistic. 31; 
what they meant by the equality 
clause in tho Declaration of Independ- 
ence, 47; were wise when they or- 



540 



INDEX. 



dainod that thf ro should l>o sovorolun 
StatfS, 6S; expoctt'd the ultimate ex- 
tlnetloii of slavery, >t;; their ijosltlon 
«>n slavery, I>()u;;las, 171 -17-4 ; policy as 
to slavery, Liiu-oln, i'>l, iV>, 40(i, 407. 
470 ct HCii.; a clear majority "of the 
;(it "opposed to slavery, ."il4; did not liii- 
derstaiidthat the Federal Coiistitut ion 
forbade them to control slavery in 
United Stales Terrltorii's. ."ilG; wean- 
not liound to follow implicitly all that 
they s;iy, Lincoln, .')17 

Federal Union, IJncoln l>elioves In. 2."); he 
would r.-ither see slavery than dissolu- 
tion of, :i'>; equality of all men can save 
and make worthy of heinj; saved, '.H; 
Lincoln declares Ids devotion to It, 
3.'^; Democratic party, " I'liion savers." 
53; will not ho dissolved, Lincoln, !i2; 
can only Ijo preserved hy mainlainin.-; 
fraternal feeling between the Nortli 
and the Soutli, Douglas, US; Is a 
'•House dividid against itself," ISl; 
Douglas exi)resses devotion to, KS); 
why It cannot endure half Slave and 
half Free, Lincoln, 354; how does 
Lincoln propose to save it, Douglas, 
395; slavery the only thing that has 
ever threatened the existence of, Liti- 
coln, 444; is per|)otual according to 
the United States Constitution, 'r!S; 
much older than United States Consti- 
tution, 5:t2; was formed by the Articles 
of .Association in 1774, 5.'J2. 

Florida, secession of, fvJS. 

Freedom, white man's charter of, In 
danger, 31; if it cannot be given to all. 
give to as many as possible, 91; down- 
trodden people of all the world look to 
the United States as the home of free- 
dom aiKl self-government. 2:.'0. 

Free Slates, should not have adv.-mtage 
over Slave States, 94; Lincoln did not 
Intend that the people of the Free 
States should enter the Slave States 
and interfere with slavery, 10:3. 

Free Soil Party, Kd. 

Fugitive Slave Law, j)assed In 18.50, 7; jjart 
of l.s.'iO Compromise, 7; Douglas states 
Lincoln's position on, 195, 220-2i-i; 
Liii'-oln's position on. 201, 202. 

Georgia, formerly owned Mississippi. :I: 

sccisslnti of. .'VCJ. 

Giddings, J. R.. Ohio Congressman, 2. 

Harper's Magazine, Stejjlien A. Douglas's 
essay In. 4C.:.'. UV-i. 

House Divided Against Itself, Lincoln's 
speech on. .52 .5!t; Douglas's opinion of 
the "house divided against itself" 
argument, firt-(lH, 100 104, 171-174, 217 ;.M".t. 
252, Ziii, 410, 417; Lincoln's argument 
on, W) K2, 12ft rt Hr/].. 151-1.54, 2)H, 4:15, 4:!i!, 
iS3 ct 8Cfj.; "docs the Judge say u <ll- 



vided house can stand?" Lincoln, 
lsO-183; "what constitutes a dlvlde<l 
lumse'i"" Lincoln, ISl; slavery an ele- 
ment of division In the "house," Lin- 
coln, I'^l ; the Union is a house divided 
against Itself. IM. 

■Human Nature, cannot he repealed, 20; 
cannot be ciianged. 52:i. 

Illinois, f. irmerly jiart of Northwestern 
Territory, 2; legislature of, on Mis- 
souri Coinproiiiise and slavery, 11; 
Ordinance of '^i7 kei)t slavery out of, 
32; decrease of slaves In, :J3; slaves in, 
when first aciiuired, 3:1; came In as a 
Slave State, Douglas, ItJ; resolution of 
legislature on the riglitof self-govern- 
ment, (i(, 124; Douglas on slavery in, 
]:JG; how the Ordinance of 'S7 kept it 
fiom becoming a Slave State. .501. 

Indiana, formerly part of Northwestern 
Territory, 2; requests permission to 
violate Ordinance of 'S7. and to bring 
in slaves, 47:J. .500; how the Ordinance 
of '.'^7 made .-i Free State, r>00. 

Individual Rights, Lincoln on, Ki. 

Institutions, preservation and perpetuity 
of, 24. 

Iowa, formerly part of Louisiana Terri- 
tory, 4; slavery prohibited in, by Mis- 
souri Compromise, 4; entered as a Free 
State, If). 

Jackson, General Andrew, President of the 
United States, disregards t lie decision of 
the Supremo Court in the National 
Bank case, 4:i; considi-rs mere prece- 
dent a dangerous source of authority, 
4:j; holds that it is the duty of each 
Ijublic functionary to support the 
Constitution as he understands It, 4\ 
41; vetoes the recharter of the Na- 
tional Bank, 85, 8t>. IM\; opinion on the 
sacredness of judicial decisions, ft), 
81), 1.50. 

Jefferson, Thomas, a slave holder, 3; pre- 
vailed on N'irginia legislature to nuike 
tlie prohibition of slavery a condition 
of cession of the Northwestern Ter- 
ritory to the National Government, 
3, on the power of the courts In Con- 
stitutional questions, 1.5(5; letter of, to 
.Tarvls, 1.5<i; tri'mbled for Ids country 
when ho reniemlK-red that God was 
just, .'150; remarks on lll>erty, ;{02; on 
emanci|)a{lou of slaves in the United 
States. .5-.'2. 

Johnson, Colonel R. M., views on the equal- 
ily of neLTiiies and whites, 2H4. 

Judicial Decisions, have two uses. Lincoln, 
42. s.">; Lincoln on the respect !ind 
obedience which should be pal<l to, 
42; of greater or lessat^iorlty a<"cord- 
Ing to circumstances, ^h; Doui;las on 
the respect and obedience that should 



INDEX. 



547 



oe rendered to, 43. mo-.iiJh 3<)G :J98; 
anarchy to appoul from, wln'ii made by 
United States Supreme (,'ourl, I)ou<,'- 
his, 4.3; JudRo Douglas dcnounce.s and 
appeals fnjm, 44; two uses of, in regard 
1oproporty,H.">: Ilie.sat'rcdru'ssof.W). S(i; 
HL'ed confinnalion bcfoi'e rcLrardcd as 
si'tth^d law, K"); the Deniocratit- party 
was not hound by them in the Na- 
tional Bank case, 150; are they a 
"Thus saith the Lord?" I')l. 1<«; the 
National Bank decision, 1!):; .Tudt;i' 
Douglas's record concerninR, T.i:i; 
Douglas attacks Lincoln's position on, 
249-352. 

Kansas, formerly part of Louisiana Ter- 
iit()7-y, 4; slavery i)rohibited in, by 
Missouri Compromise, 4; Kansas- 
Nebraska bill passed, 8; Free Stal'- 
men in, did not vote at the Constitu- 
tional convention, 41; 18.)7 election in.* 
41; no Free State Democrats in, 42; at- 
tempt of a minoritj' to force into the 
Union under Lec^ompton Constitution. 
93; proposition of Congress to, 95; 
"bogus" legislature of, 109; Lincoln 
questions Douglas concerning his 
views on the admission of, 266; confer- 
ence among United States Senators in 
regard to "enabling act." 2.s7 ct scq.; 
Trumbull's charge of plot to form con- 
stitution for, 287 ct scq. ; Douglas re- 
views Trumbull's arraignment of hi;ii 
(Douglas) for participating in a plot 1 > 
force a constitution upon Kansas, 29< 
et seq. ; plot to form a constitution for, 
and bring into the Union, without sub- 
mitting the constitution to a vote of 
the people, 334, 3J.>; " whenever Kansas 
has enough population for a Slave 
State she has enough for a Frei^ 
State," Douglas, 3!;); right of, to be a 
Slave State, 340; Lecompton Constitu- 
tion rejected by the people of, 341: 
Douglas on the admission of,- under 
the Lecompton Constitution, 420, 421. 

Kansas-Nebraska Bill, when passed, 8; an- 
alysis of, 8; object of, 17; urged as a 
" Union-saving" measure, 3i); peculiar 
structure of, 26; authors of, not satis- 
fied with the destruction of tin- 
Missouri Compromise, 28; principle 
sought to bo esta'ulished by, 2s ; sla- 
very would not be extended by, Doug- 
las, 32; what the principles of it 
did for Illinois, 33; Judge Douglas 
compares principles of, to princii)le ; 
enunciated in Eden, i54; Lincoln replies 
to Judge Douglas's " Eden " argument 
on, 34; argument for. likened to ofd ar- 
gument on divine right of kings, Lin- 
coln, M; ditfers from Utali. New Mc\- 
ico and Washington Territorial acts. 



37; "grand, gloomy, and peculiar," 37; 
left the people (if the Territories free 
to Inive or e.xclude slavery, ni; "the 
people null/ e.xclude slavery," amend- 
ment defeated, ni; to carry slavery 
into all the Free States, jV; ()bje<'tof, 
t o secure the right of sel f-governmunt, 
Douglas 64; introduced Into United 
States Senate, 9:1; object of. Douglas, 
92; great principles of, endorsed by 
lte|)ul)lican party, %; In conformity 
witli principles of the Compromise of 
I8.-)0, Dougla.s, 97, 10!), 124; d<-clared 
Missouri Compromise act unconstitu- 
tional and void, Douglas, 132; why the 
amendment stating that the people of 
a Territory may exclude slavery was 
voted down, ISO 188; why the word 
"State" was in it, Lincoln, IS7; the 
Chase amendment to, 198, 199; why 
the word "State" was in it, Douglas, 
199; why the Chase amendment was 
voted down, Lincoln, 207 211; Dred 
Scott case not on i<upremo Court 
docket when Nebraska bill passed, 
Douglas, 230-232; "to put another 
end" to tiie slavery question, 319; 
"the true intent and meaning of the 
act," 338; its principle not in the IS.'W 
C )mpromise, Lincoln, 35J; remarks of 
1) )uglas upon its passage, 401, 402; 
Alexander H. Stepliens on, 42">, 428. 

Kentucky, formerly owned by Virginia, 
2; no abolitionist would enter to fight, 
102; why a Slave State, Lincoln, ">00. 

Labor and Capital, Lincoln on, 50-3-.506. 

Lawgiver, the intention of the, is the law, 
.Vil. 

Lecompton Constitution, quarrel between 
I'residenti Uuchaiian M'ld .fudge I>oug- 
las as to whether it wa-> made by tlie 
people or not. 54; hist()ry and analysis 
of, 60-62; basis of Judge Douglas's ol> 
j»>ctions to, ()i>, 92, 93, 420. 421; the liepulj- 
licans, not the Democrats, defeated it. 
Lincoln, 79, 80; made by a minority of 
the people of Kansas, 93; Douglas did 
not oppose on account of slavery 
clause in, 93; provisions of the Eng- 
lish bill concerning. 91. 120; a(iuestion 
of fact, not principle, between the 
lUichanan and the Douglas men 
and Republicans, 148; Lincoln tells 
who defeated it, 148-151; why not an 
emination of the people, l.V); Douglas 
styles the attempt to force Kansas 
into Uw. Union under, a gross viola- 
tion of the principle enunciated in the 
Compromise Measures of iS'iO, .'tl8; re- 
jected by the people of Kansas. 341; 
posit i(ni of President Buchanan on. 
421. 422. 



548 



TN'DFA'. 



Liberties, Lincoln on the proscrvutlon 
iiikI |M-riM-ii)ity of, ^2^. 

Lli>«rt^ liiiN itiimmI to Ih< r*'V('Pt»d as h 
j)rliu'l|il<', Lliifolii, :.'<.•; Lincoln (li-cliinvs 
till- tt-at-liliit; of l>out;liis will "ruliout 
tlie MMitinicnt of IllH-rty," IR); It Istlu; 
rljjhl of i>vi>ry liiinian ln-lnu, Madison, 
91: iic-;;r«K>s fnlltli'd U). 1M>; Lincoln 
tifclan-s I)on;;las not In favor of niaU- 
InK any tJHTtTcni'i' In'twoi-n slavery 
iind lilHTty. :ri);; .JctTtTson on. ;*>:i: Lin- 
coln tlilnks tliat tlu> wliltc man's lib- 
erty Is tlircaifiu'd hy tbA bluck man's 
sliivi-ry. 44-J. 

Lovejoy. Owen, preamble and resolutions 
for ICt'imlillcan party In Senatorial 
conlcNt. ii'>, '^\. 

Louisiana, entered I'nlon us a Slave Stale, 

A: secession of. .'vC. 

Louisiana Territory, purchased from 
l"raiic-e. 4; Staler Included in, 4; part 
of. orj;anlzed as a Terrltijry. ."ili; Con- 
gressional regulations concerning 
slaves in, HVi. 

Madison. James, would not bring " Billey " 
back to Ixmiiage. 01; liberty the right 
nf every liuiii.'in being. 91. 

Mayo, Judge 2. 8., views on the equality of 
Macks and wliiles, •2i'i4. 2C>.">. 

Methodist Church. divide<l Into two parts 
by I lie >lave? y ([uestlon, 441. 

Mexico. Mexican Acquisition, etc., war wlili. 
.">; resoliit ions In Hou>e coMi'erning. .">; 
treaty of pe;ice wit h, tl; ai'ijuircd Mexi- 
can territory, would lie south of Mis- 
souri Cloniproniiso line, if said line 
were extc-nded. tj; New ^Mexico. T'tali. 
and California Included In Mexican 
ac(|ulsltion. li; resolutions concertdng 
slavi'ry In .Mexican ac(|uisltion, 6; Lin- 
coln n'views. r)ouglas's charges in re- 
gard to his (Lincoln's) position on, 3::i. 
:C2. 

Michigan, formerly part of Northwestern 
Teriiliiry. L'. 

Ministers of Springfieid, position of, on 
slavery. .'»:>. .VJli. 

Minnesota, formerly part of Louisiana 
Terrlt4iry. 4; slavery prohibited in, by 
MUMiurl Coinproinise, 4. 

Minority, when Just Hied in breaking out 
liiio revolution. .'VIM. 

Mississippi, former ownership of, 2; ter- 
ril4)rlal organixatlon of, rtl'2; r«'gula- 
tlons concerning slaves In, .'>12; succes- 
sion of. Xii. 

Motony, R. S., nondnated for Congress. 
3'i2; vlew> of, on slav«'ry. Ji'ii. "JiVI; ap- 
(Mtlnted to o(Il<'e. '.ilU: <tenouncerl by 
Douglas. 'SK 

Missouri, formerly part of Louisiana 
'I'errltory. 4; may enter as a .slave 
.llali'. I: .iiUred :i-, ;i Slave Slate, II: 



shivery in, 16; the men of Missouri and 
slavery in Nebrask.a, 'Jli; Increase of 
slaves In. ;CI; why a Slave State. "lOl. 

Missouri Compromise, Lincoln an: a part 
of the slavery iiuestlon, 2; appt<rlalne(l 
to the Northwestern Territory. 2; what 
it was, 4; prohibited slavery in low.a. 
Minnesota. Kansas, and Nebrasl{a. 4; 
repeal of. S; arguments for repeal of 
and answers to tin- same. 10 it ^f <;. ; 
"Mlsstuirl line," not an extension of 
the Ordinance of 'S7, 12, i:t; principle 
of e(|uivalents In. i:t, 14, Xi; the repeal 
of. intrinsically wrong, l.'>, Iti; reasons 
why it ought to Ih- resfore<l, 27, 2s; Iiow 
passed, .■l.">; tlie Compromise of 'r>0; did 
not repeal the old Missouri Compro- 
mise, 2,">"; u bill substantially repeal- 
ing the Missouri Compromise. 257. 

Missouri Compromise, Ji/dj/r Dmifilnn itn: 
upliolds it. .">; admits tliat it was de- 
cl.ired unconstitutional and void by 
Kansas-Nebraska bill, 132. 

Mulattoes, number of. In United States in 
1S.V1. ,">0; numlx>r of. In Free States in 
1 s">(), .'.0. 

National Bank, Supreme Court decision 
as to tiie constitutionality of. 43, 44; 
.lud,;e D.iuglas denounced the decision 
on tile. 44; President .lackson vetoed 
re-charter of. S"!. 1:V5. 1>7. l.">s. P.O. 

Nebraska ,Bill, See Kansas-Nebr.vsk.\ 
lUi.i,. 

Nebraska, formeily part of Louisiana 
Territory, 4; slavery prohiljlted in, by 
Missouri Compromise, 4, H; Kansas- 
Nebraska Hill passed. S; right of the 
National (Jovernnient to control, 22; 
slavery in, u national question, 2t; 
spirit of, antagonistic to the spirit of 
LTiJ, ai. 

Negroes, Lincoln on: numlKT of free ne- 
groes in tin' United States, 19; in our 
greedy chase to make profit out of, 
wi' <'ancel a.Mil tear to plei;es evt-n the 
whlt« man's charter of freedom, id; 
how the free negnn's in the Slave 
Stat4?s were counted as voters, X>; are 
human, .'(7; the Uidti-d States Consti- 
tution was made In part, at least, liy 
and for negroids. 44, 4."); rightof free ne- 
groes to voti' taken away in New .Ters»>y 
and Nortit Carolina and abridged In 
New ^'ork, 4.">; free negroes were vot- 
ers In live Stat»'s when United States 
Constitution was made. 4.'*; (Hilnts in 
widch they are equal to white m«-n, 
47; the ndxlng of the races. 49 .'C; 
niynlM'rof negriH's in New Hampshire 
and ill Virginia, ,'iO: slavery ine.ans 
amalgamation. .Vi; "counterfeit logic " 
of l>onglason negr«jes and their rela- 
ilou to whites, 6S; "why, .Indkre, If 



INDEX. 



549 



we do not let them [tlic negroes and 
whites] get together n the Territories, 
they won't mix there," 88; argumeiKs 
for enslaving tlie negro sami- as ar- 
guments used by kings to enslave 
their i)eople, 90; the legal effects of 
the Dred Scott decision, such as (o 
deprive the negro of the rights of clll- 
zenshii), i:t(> et gcq.; not necessary to 
set up a court of negroes in order to 
reverse the Dred Scott decision, l.'W; 
rights of the negro, l.V.t, KiO; Lincoln's 
whole idea on the eijuallly question, 
178, ITlt; negroes entitled to all the 
natural rights eiiuraerated in the Dec- 
laration of IndejH'ndence, 180; Lincdhi 
not in favor of maUing voters or jurois 
of negroes, 2H.i; not in favor of negro 
citizenship, 317; our e(iuals under tlic 
Declaration of Independence, in re- 
spect to rights of "life, liberty, ami 
the pursuit of happiness," ;t.'')3; Lincoln 
does not believe in negro sutfrage. 
4.59; thinks the enslavement of the 
negro is an Injury to the white man. 
490; Lincoln reviews Douglas's w- 
marks on "the negro and the croco- 
dile," 490, 491. 

Negroes, Judue D(nnjl<is on: each State 
must decide on the rights that the 
negro is capable of enjoying, 70; op- 
posed to giving the negro a voice in 
the Government, 72; he should not 
have all the rights that a wliite man 
has, 111; not ecjual to the white man, 
115; "no kin of mine," 139; the rights 
of the negro, 173, 174; Douglas de- 
clares that the Almighty did not make 
the negro capable of self-government. 
a)0; asserts that the signers of tlie 
Declaration of Independence never 
dreamed of the negro when writing 
that instrument, .'WO; thinks the negro 
ought to possess every right which he 
can safely exercise consistent with 
the safety of the society in which 
he lives, 347, 436, 437. 

Negroes, Declaration of Independence 
and United States Constitution not 
made for, Taney, 44; Judge Taney's 
statement as to whether they were in- 
cluded in the eciuality clau.se of tin- 
Declaration of Independence, 4.'); 
views of Colonel J. M. Johnson on, as 
regards equality with whites, 384. 

New Mexico, a part of the Mexican acqui- 
sition, 0; slavery laws of, 36; express 
provision of Congress to allow New 
Mexico to enter the Union with slav- 
ery if the people wished it, M; the 
Compromise of 1850 and the organiza- 
tion of the Territory of New Mexico. 
354; organization as a Territory did 



not establish a general principle In 
regard to siavi i y. iW. :i,V>. 

Northwestern Territory. .MKsourl Compro- 
nilst! ap|)lled to it only, 3; orlglnully 
owned by Virginia, 3; comprised the 
prinr-li)al i>arl of (ihlo, all Indiana, all 
Illinois, all Michigan, all \Vls.-..nslii, 
3; slavery prohlliitc<l In, 3; the Fa- 
thers of the rnlled Stat«'s Con.stltu- 
tlon prohibited slavery In, 3tt; history 
of, r>00, .'•OI. See also OKDI.NANTB OK 
I7s7. 

Ohio, part of, was C(»riiprlsed In North- 
western Territory, 3; part of, furinerty 
belonged to Ctmni-i-tlcul. 3; requests 
pei'mlsslon to violate the Ordinani-e 
of '87, and lo bring in slaves, 47J; Imw 
Ohio lu'came a Free State, 49'.l, .'iOft; 

Ordinance o! 1787, restrains shivery. 3, 
470; the proiiiltltion of slavery by, 
aciiuiesced in till ls48, 3; petition of 
Indiana and Ohio to bring in slaves 
in spite of the Ordinance of 's7, 4?3; 
how it made a Free State of Ohio, 4911. 
.'WO; not so enforced as to destroy tlu> 
existing Institution of slavery In Illi- 
nois, rM; Act of tlrst United States 
Congress to enforci' the Ordinance, 
■)1 1 ; Washington on. 510. 

Oregon, Territory of Washington formed 
a part of. 36. 

Pettit. Senator John, styles the "eciuallty " 
statement of the I )i'cl:irat ion nf I ndv- 
l)i'ndence "a self-i\ iilrni lie " 31, Cc'. 

Pierce, Franklin B., President of United States. 
Lincoln charges him with being in a 
(;onspiracy t ) nationalize slavery, 197, 
310. 330, 331, 304 et nc</.. 3H9. 

Popular Sovereignty, Judge Douglas on the 
•■gi'eat prini-iple of," 63; "what Is 
pcjpular sovereignty ?" Lincoln, 76-78; 
another name for ".squatter sover- 
eignty." 70; Douglas Insincere In his 
position t)n, Lincnin, 7(i 7n; originated 
in the Declaration of Independence, 
78; Illinois the first State to take a 
s(|uarc position on, 13:t; "What Is the 
matter ot popular sovereignty?" 146 
cl scq.; Lincoln says that Douglas is 
opposed to, 147; Lincoln's delinltiou 
of, 183; Lincoln styles Douglas's iK>pu- 
lar sovereignty theory a "miner and 
sapper," 461, 4.S0; Lincoln's distinction 
between Douglas's popular .sover- 
eignty and true popul.ir sovereignly, 
4(11; the Douglas popular sovereignty 
applied. 461. 463, ri03. ri03; as a principle. 
478 480; what will follow if it Is estab- 
lished, 4.S0; Douglas's popular sover- 
eignty doctrine means the esfabllsh- 
nieiit of the slave trade. 491, 493; Lin- 
coln defines true popular sovereignty. 
503, .503. 



r»r>o 



INDEX. 



Precedentt. » ilanRcmus soun-o tit uu- 

tliiitily, 4^1; all pri-ct'dcnts u;;:iiiist tlu' 
111.. I >f4.il l».-.Kl,.ii, 44. St'o als«» Jl- 

I>1«IA1. llKl l^lllNS. 

Preib)(i.rian General Assembly, dIsturlH'd by 
nI.i vrry ((UinI Ion. 4JI. 

Protidencjf ol United Slates. lUnivrla-^. I>>-i:i<>- 
cnitli- <aii<il(lat.- f.ir, I4.">: l.iiu-olii, Kf- 
Itulilli-aii caiidUlalc for. 14.">. 

Principle, slavery Mriij:Kl<'. om- of, 14.">. 

Profit, "our Krt'wly chusi- to luako ])r<)lll 
of till- iii';rro." 31. 

Property, I'liltrd States Huprcnu' Court 
tIc.-Klnii In the Unil Si-olI >a>f assi-rt s 
that tlie riilt<<l Stales ( oust It ill Ion 
rci-o;;ni/es property In slaves. :)i'»T. 

Public Sentiment, linjiortance of uioldlii^:. 
I'.il. 

Republican Party, what kind of decision 
the parly desin-d in the Died SeotI 
case, M; oiiposltlun to the spread of 
slavi-ry the chief plank in the plat- 
form of, fll ; the "allied army" of the. 
T.i; object of the "allied army," ac- 
cordin;: to I>oiii;las, 7:t; Lincoln on the 
"allied army" of the, 7.">, 7i'>; Uncoln 
says It iH'lleves In popular sover- 
t'ltriity, 7H; the Kepublicaiis not the 
iH'nicKTat.s defeated the Li'coniptoii 
Constitution, Tit, Nl; what the endorse- 
ment of .ludjre ]>on;:las would mean 
to the, h?; supi)Orted the Crlttt-iiden- 
Moiit;;oniery l)ill, iKi; endorsed the 
Kansas-Nebraska bill, Dou^'las. »>: 
]>ou);las on the "Republican creed," 
12.">; disadvantapes sulferi'd by the 
party In Illinois, 14.'1, 144; Kinesis of 
the, lf*\, lt',7; lirst resolutions of, ac- 
cordln;^ t<J Douglas, ItiT, ItkS; Douglas 
on the organly-ation of. In 1S">4, li»4, lll'i; 
platform of, adopted by tlie llockford, 
III., Convention, in lK.%4, i.'0-2i"); Ke- 
])Ublican party and llie l''u;;itlve-Slave 
law, 2:33 22s; a sectional organization, 
'M2; LiiK'oln reviews .ludpe Doujflas's 
ar;.'U!ni'nt tliat the jjarty is a sectional 
one, ;C>2 '.VA; dllTerence between the 
K<-pul>lican party and .Tud>re Douglas, 
.i.V,; think slavery wronu, '-isi. 44.1; 
.Iud).'e DoU);las says that the party ap- 
IH-als to the North a);alnst the South. 
:<U4; the original and chief purpose of, 
44JO; Lincoln on the want of u national 
IM.Ilcy. .vit; .vnt. 

Revolutionary Doctrines, Douglas accuses 
Lincoln of proniulKHtinf;. 14:^, 171. 

Right, stand with any one who stands 
rlsjht. •>: " we for^'el riK'ht." -V; Jud^e 
DouclaH Hays that the negro .should 
not have all the riglits that tli<> white 
tnan has, 111; the negrii's, to Ih> on an 
i-<|iiallty with the white man, a divine 
rl-'lii 11 ; of 11 iMoi.le to form llnir 



own C<institution, 147; of a noffro to 
life, liberty, and happiness, i:>9, 160; 
negnx-s ciililled to all the rights 
enumerali'd hi the Declaration of In- 
dependence, Isii; "right makes ndght," 

" Sacred Right ol Slavery," :iO, :tl. 

Secession, of seven States, .lit;. 

Se.l-government. the sacred right of, 30; 
what Is ^elf-government, at; the right 
of, iM'longs to communities, 2U; detini- 
flon of, -1; "sa«'red riglit tif sidf-gov- 
ernment" and tlie slavt; tratle, lU; as 
relat<'(i to the int roduct ion of slavery 
into a Territory, :i'i; slavi-ry a sacred 
right of, ;>1; doctrine of, for the Terri- 
tories a deceitful pret»'iise for the 
benefit of slavery, 40; the sacred right 
of, for I'tali and polygamists, 4<». 41; 
if one man diooses to en>.la ve anotiier, 
11) third man may i;ilerfere, Lincoln 
on. "I'l; the most sacred ])rlnci|)le of, 
Douglas, (JO, 421), 4')i:irt «<<;.; right of the 
pi'ople to decide ujion their own laws, 
(j"i: I'n-e Stati'S should not Interfere 
wit h Slave States, Lincoln, ^G; Illinois 
1,'gislature's resolutions on self-gov- 
ernment, 124; the right of the people 
to form their own Constitution, 147; 
the downtrodden people of all the 
world look to America as tlie home of, 
2.'!t; tlio Almighty did not make the 
negro cai)able of, Douglas, 2d0; Jeffer- 
son Davis on, 4:l."i. 

Cenate. Sei- I'MTKn States Senate. - 

Slavery, LinvtAiiou: Missouri Compromise 
a part of the domestic slavery tjui's- 
tiori, 2; restraiiieii in Northwestern 
Territory by Ordinance of 's7. .t; agita- 
tion commenced over Missouri, 4; re- 
strained North of :«!°;{0'nortli latitude 
by Missouri Comiiromlse, 4; California 
])rolill)ited from entering tlie I'nion 
bei-ause opposed to, G; Texas western 
bouiulary iiuestion Involved slavery 
(|iU'Stlon, 7; Lincoln does not know 
what to do with the existing institu- 
tion of, 9; in the Territories, 14; influ- 
ence of climate on, Itl; In Missouri, 10; 
introduced without law. 17; admitting, 
to new States perpetuatt'S the institu- 
tion of, IS; the Fathers <)piK).sed to car- 
rying it Into new Territories, 21,22. 2r>4, 
2.V1; right of tlie Natlon:il Govi-rninent 
to prohibit slavery in the Territories. 
22; Introduction of, into the Territ<v 
rles as related to the "sacred right of 
self-government." 21; In 'I'errltories, a 
National <|uesllon, 2:1; Would rather 
see slavery than a dissolution of the 
I'nlon. :i."i; what slavery Is f.ninded in, 
2li; Kansas-Nebraska bill indefinite as 
u seiilenieiit of shivifv i| iii'--l !■ m, -y,; 



^ 



INDEX. 



551 



th(! Yankees and slavery in Neljiaska, 
»'0; the Fathers of the; Xalioii objected 
to, 29; slavery was introduced by llie 
British kinp, whom the Fathers 
blamed, and they prohibited It in the 
Northwestern Territory, 2'.); the word 
"t'lave" not used in the United Slates 
Constitution, 20; the Fathers tolerated 
slavery only as a necessity, :!0; enact- 
ments of the United States Conj,M'ess 
on, till 1S20, 30; "the sacred rij,Mit of," 
30, 31; slavery is undermining the 
spirit of pro<;ress and violating the 
noblest political system, 31; "let us 
turn slavery from lis claims of moial 
right," 31; a great moral wrong, 37,^3, 
357, 48,').; doctrine of self-government 
for the Territories a deceitful pre- 
tense for the benefit of slavery, li»; 
Dred Scott Decision decided that thi' 
United States Congress had no pov.i r 
to prohibit slavery in the Territories, 
4.3, 46; slavery means amalgamalion of 
tho races, 50; the Fathers and the 
people of the Nation had rested in 
the belief that slavery would in pro- 
cess of time become extinct, 81, 82; 
Free States have no right to inti'i- 
fere with, in Slave States, 82: the 
arguments for slavery the same in all 
ages, 1)0; the institution of, ouglit to be 
placed in tho very attitude where the 
f ramers of the Constitution placed it, 
152; on tho ultimate extinction of, 153; 
a conspiracy to make it "perpetual, 
national, and universal," 153, IGO, 182, 
191-194, 2.54; how slavery entered the 
Colonies, 157; the IMother Country 
would not prohibit it in the Colonies, 
157; the policy to plant slavery in the 
Territories the same as that which 
planted it in the Colonies, 158; should 
not be interfered witli in the States 
where it exists, 179; has always failed 
to be a bond of union, 181; should be 
placed where it would be in the course 
of ultimate extinction, 182; why tho 
amendment to the Kansas-Nebraska 
bill, expressly authorizing tlie people 
of a Territory to exclude slavery, was 
voted down, 180-188; the duty of Con- 
gress to prohibit it in all United States 
Territories, 202; on its abolition in the 
District of Columbia, 203; States have 
a right to regulate slavery as they 
please, 2.54; some Democratic resolu- 
tions as to slavery, 2.59-206; cannot be 
excluded from the Territories in view 
of the Dred Scott Decision, 267; the 
proposition that slavery cannot enter 
a new country without favorable po- 
lice regulations is historically false. 
268; the question of slavery .settled 



forever," In 1H50, but re-oponed by 
Douglas In four years. 31U; Its ulll- 
ni.ite extinction will ix'cur In the l>i'st 
way for iKith races, :J20; Douglas Is not 
in favor of making any dllTerence Im- 
tween slavery and liberty, :i.V;; Demo- 
cratic arguments do not allow that 
there is anything wrong in slavery. 
356; a moral, social, and jmlltlcal evil. 
.1.57; the Itepiiblican parly thinks sla- 
very wrong, 3^1,443; Douglas will not 
.say that slavery is wrong, .■tK.5-.W7, 4N7; 
the groat disturbing elirn<-nt In reli- 
gion as well as In politics, 441 ; why we 
ought to keep It out of new Terri- 
tories, 442; the real Issue In the case. 
443; Democratic parly dues not treat 
slavery as a wrong. 414; where slavery 
must not be talked about, 445; what 
follows, if slavery Is not a wrong, 44«: 
the ctmdition of the country with ref- 
erence to slavery on .January 1, ls.54, 
4.59, 460; when there was pi'ace on the 
(juestion, 46.3 ct xeq.; not an unlntijor- 
tant matter, 4(i5. 46N; Douglas's ik)sI- 
tion that the jjeople of the Territories 
have j)owi'r to control slavery "as 
other property." 475; on the ultimate 
extint^tion of, iKlet xai.; no power un- 
der the United States Government to 
interfere with, in tho Stales, 4s4 
ct »cq., .5:}0; the logic of J>ouglas's 
statement that he "do n't care whether 
slavery is voted up or voti-d down," 
487; to argue that slavery is right ac- 
cording to the Bible, an unwise argu- 
ment for the Iventuckians, 4S9, 490; 
the slavery of the negro an injury to 
the white man, 490; review of r>oug- 
las's position on tho people of tho 
Territories "controlling slaverj-," 494; 
the Ordinance of '87 was not so en- 
forced as to destroy the exi.sting In- 
stitution of slavery in Illinois, ."iOl ; 
dissertation on slavery and hired 
labor, 50.3, 504; " slavery or the Gov- 
ernment must be destroyed," 529; 
the United States Constitution dtK's 
not expressly say that Congress may 
prohibit or muKt protect slavery In 
the Territories, 534. See also Negkoes, 
Slaves, and Missouri Co.mpromise. 
Slavery, Ji/'/yc Doi/pJas on: resolution in 
the Uiuled Stales Senate to admit sla- 
very to the southern part of the Mexi- 
can acquisition, 6; the object of the 
Kansas-Nebraska bill not to leglshite 
siavary into Territories or .'<l:ites, 03; 
"who expects to live to see slavery 
abolished?" 103; only one way In 
which slavery can W abolished. 103; 
answer to Lincoln's argument that 
under the Dred Scott decision slavery 



552 



INDEX. 



would fnior the Torrltorlos, URt 111; 
hluvi-ry i-uiiiiot cxKt iiKi>l»^t tlic will 
of i1m> pt'ople, lay, 110, i:i,>; tlu- jjiacti- 
ciil «|Uf*thiii of hluvi-ry nol affiH-ti-tl 
by tho DrvHl .'^fott lk>i-l.sloii, 110; hla- 
viTy la Illinois, IJii; Wlil^saiKl Dt-iiio- 
crats M}rr«'i> on lln- ixillcy i-nnrcrnln;:, 
]a.'>, 10(S, :^K),:.'4<i; posltliin of llii> I'alliiTs 
on, 171 17-1; the jkiwit of a Tt-rrltory 
to fxi'ludtf shivory prior to tin* forma- 
tion of tlio Constitution, ::i:i. ::M: u 
fundamental artirli* of tlic l>rmo- 
••ratU" (Tfi'd that tln-rt- sr'x'uld In- non- 
IntorftToni'i- and non-lnli'rvi'nti«)n hy 
I'onnrt'ss with slavi-ry In tin- T«'rrl- 
torlfs, :X>; cannot Ik* m.'ilntalni'd In 
a Territory where the people arc 
unfriendly t») It, 2f>2; cannot be Intro- 
duced Into a Territory witlmut 
friendly legislation, ;W7 ft xi -/• ^*'" 
also Nkohoks, Si^AVES, and Missoi'iii 

COMI'ItOMISK. 

Slavery, opiniun of Preston S. Urooks on, 
I'ii, l.Vl, io; Thompson Canipbell's 
views on, 'XI, '2&i; K. :^. Molony's views 
on, 2l5:J, 'Jii3; resolutions of the Demo- 
cratic district convention at Xaper- 
vUle, III., on, 2»54; views of Jud^e 
Muyo on, 'Mi, 'M,'>; resolutions concern- 
ing passed by Vermont State Demo- 
cratic convention, 2(V); the ])rohibitlon 
of, by ConRress, In Territories, uncon- 
stitutional, 367; wo could not get our 
Constitution unless wo permitted sla- 
very, IK-nry Clay, 4.'t:!, i'.U; regulations 
con<"erniiig. In Mississii)pi, 51:2; ri-gu- 
lutlons I'oncerning, in Louisiana, 513. 
See also Neukoes, Slaves, and Mis- 

80UHI COMI'IIOMI.SE. 

Slaves, Lincoln does not know what to 
do with them, i); would not hold one 
himself, 9; number of. North of Mis- 
souri Compromise lint-, 10; condition 
of, in Nebraska, 17; number of, woulil 
be Increased by admitting slavery 
Into Nebraska, \X; decrease of. In 
Illinois, and Increase of. In Missouri. 
Si; there were slaves In Illinois when 
the land was Urst ac(|uired, Xi; how 
counted as voters, 35; laws forbidding 
emunclpatlon of, 4.'i, 46; liberation of, 
56; Lincoln diH'S not want a black or a 
slave f<jr a wife, hx; If some must Ik' 
slaves, let the numlM-r be as small as 
jxjssible, 1)1; ]>ossess no legal |)ower in 
Virginia to make a choice, l.Vl; are 
projHTty, a;7; If Dred Scott Decision 
bo«'orrect, a constitutional right ex- 
ists to hold slaves In Territories, Lin- 
coln. UH. Sri- NKIinoES. 

Slave Ownert, know that negroes have 
natural riglils, lU; the way tbey gov- 
ern, 21. 



Slate States, live north of Missouri ( om- 
promlse line, hi; hiul C4jnsti( ntional 
ailvantages, SJ, L'4; their advantages 
in regard to counting voters, ;J4, a,"i; 
IM-ople of the Free States have no 
right to dictate to the people if the. 
tii; sliuuUI Milt have i.d v:iiita;-<s over 
the l'"n'e Stales, i»4; slavery should not 
be Interfered with In the, Lincoln. I'D; 
Lincoln on the adndsslon of, ^1 :.*0:t; 
Douglas on the admUsion of, :.':>i; 
'•whenever K'ansas has enough popu- 
1. it Ion for a .'■^lave .State, .sin- has enough 
for a I'reo State," Douglas, ;cj<.»; no 
power under tho United Stales Gov- 
ernment to Intt-rfere with slavery In 
tlie, Lincoln, 4.'<4 c( «c<;. 

Slave Trade, did not end with isus, 18; 
nor the ■•>acrt-d right of self-govern- 
ment," iJ; lirst I'nited Stales Congress 
on the, :)(); Lincoln not pledged a;;ainst 
the, iK'tween different States, 203 204; 
Douglas's popular sovereignty means 
the revival of the African Slave Trade, 
4'.tl, 4K. 

South Carolina, "who expects to live to 
see slavery abolished in South Caro- 
lina'/" Dou^'las, 103; secession of, .'i;C 

Southern States. Lincoln did not Intend 
tliat the i)eople of the Northern .states 
should enter to Interfere with slavery, 
Kr.'. 

Springfield Resolutions, 1ii7, 108, 205, 300, 219, 
:.';:ii, :{.".: :i(»i, :i.;'.i :!ru'; 411, 412. 

Squatter Sovereignty, otlii'rwise called "tin- 
siicred tight of si'lf-governmeiil," .'».(; 
".siiuatted out of existence," uiuler 
the Dred Scott Decision, .'>.">; nnoiber 
name for "popular sovereignty," 70; 
the right to govern a Territory not 
your own, 77; what has become of 
s(|Uatter soveri'ignty, 77. 

State Legislatures, at tirsl held tin- power 
to :il)olish ^l;lvery, 40; no wish to have 
them blotted out, 84. 

State Rights, admission of Territories 
into the rnion with or without sla- 
very. IW; sovi-ieign, to decide slaveiy 
i|uestion, 200; to regulate domi'stlc In- 
stitutions, 207, 410; .st'ttled by the Coin- 
prondse Measures of 1S.-|0, 2:i9, 240. 

State Rights under the United States Constitu- 
tion. ii'.i., ii;r, 171. irj. i'><'. in>. .-.'is. '.'.rx 2.s;t. 
:ii:. :fi;i. 

State Rights, DintuUui on: deiinltlon of, 07, 
iW; each State must decide on tin* 
rights of the black man, 70; asks Lin- 
coln questions on, lOS; general re- 
marks on. 174. ;.••> :r«i. :i?2. 

Stephens. Alexander H., opinion of. on tlie 
Kaiisas-N.-braska bill. 4'^,. 420. 

Taney. Chief Justice, insists that the Dec- 
laration of Iiide|M-udence and the Con- 



INDEX. 



553 



stitution of tho T'nitocl States vfvvc 
not made for iK-groes. U; on tho state 
of public opinion concurninK lu-firoi's 
when United States Constitution was 
made, 45; Lincoln's chart;e of con- 
spiracy against, 197, 210, 2:i0, ,3K<,); tlic 
first to say tliat tlie term '"all men " 
in the Declaration of Independence 
did not include the ne-^ro. WS. 

Tennessee, formerly owned by Nortli 
(Carolina and ceded to tiie National 
Government, 2, 512. 

Territories, tho question of slaveiy in, 14; 
t'ongress on slavery in, 14; ri'laiion 
of slavery to self-government in. 2:!; 
slavery in, a national question, 211; 
doctriiu^, of self-government for, a de- 
ceitful pretence for the benefit of sla- 
very, 40; Drod Scott Decision, declared 
that Congress could not prohibit sla- 
very in, 42; "popular sovereignty " and 
organization of, Lincoln, (12; if negroes 
are not admitted to tho Territories 
they cannot mix with tho whites therts 
Lincoln, 88; Douglas's answer to Lin- 
coln's argument that under the Dred 
Scott Decision slavery would enter 
the Territories, 109 111; Douglas de- 
clares that tlie practical question of 
slavery in tho Territories is not af- 
fected by the Dred Scott Decision, 110. 
i;i5; light of tho people of, to form a 
constitution for themselves, Douglas, 
148; policy to plant slavery in, exactly 
the same as that which planted sla- 
very in tho Colonies, 1.58; must decide 
what rights and privileges are con- 
sistent with the public good, 174; why 
the amendment to the Kansas-Ne- 
braska hill, expressly authorizing the 
people of a Territory to exclude sla- 
very was voted down, Lincoln, 18U- 
188; Lincoln contends that Congress 
has tho right to proliibit slavery in, 
202; Douglas on the power of the peo- 
ple of a Territory to exclude slavery 
prior to tho formation of their consti- 
tution, 213, 214; policy of the Fathers, 
concerning slavery in the, Lincoln, 
255; decision of tho United States Su- 
preme Court that the prohibition of 
slavery in, by Congress, is unconstitu- 
tional. 2()7; Dred Scott Decision forbids 
exclusion of slaves from the, 267; a 
fundamental article of the Democratic 
creed that there should be non-inter- 
fereuco and non-intervention by Con- 
gress with slavery iu tho Territories, 
280; slavery cannot bo maintained in 
a Territory where the people are un- 
friendly to It, Douglas, 282; Douglas 
on the Dred Scott Decision and slavery 
in the, :U7 et scq. ; right of the, to sett le 



slavoiy (lucstlon fur t lieniselvc-v -iiKi 
4(15; .lelVerson Davison shivery In, 42.1; 
why keep slavery oul of new Terrl- 
t.)rles, Lincoln. 442; accordhn; to the 
Ured Sett DecM.ui there Ua.-..nstl- 
tullonal right to hold slaves In. UH 
ct acq.; have the right to control 
slaves as other property, 475; actions 
of tho Kathers In regard to slavery 
In, Lincoln, 510 ff xiv/. ; i;nlti-<l Stali-s 
( 'unstltution does not i-xpressly say 
that Congress twiy prohibit slavery 
ill. .'):t4; United States Constitution 
does not expiessly say that Congress 
viiixt protect slavery In .".14. 

Texas, .Missouri Conipiondse slavery 
restriction, as extended, applied to 
northern Texas, 4; Western boundary 
question, involved slavery question. 
7; secession of. ril2. 

Times, "tlu^se are bad times," :iil. 

Treason, Douglas accuses Lincoln of mak- 
ing a treasonabh' speech, 14."). 

Trumbull, Senator Lyman, speech of, against 
llie Lecduipton ConstitutUin, l.'iO; 
Douglas's reinlidscences of, 17(1; Lin- 
coln's version of his "bargain" with, 
177; Lincoln lndor-.es, 284 ct acq.; 
charges Douglas with particli)ation 
iu a plot to form a constitution for 
Kansas. 2-i4; Douglas charges Truni- 
l)ull with forgerj', 291 ct xrq. ; Douglas 
discusses Trumbull's charge that he 
(Douglas) participated in a plot to 
form a constitution for Kansas, 297- 
304; Lincoln says he ni'ver knew him 
to tell a lie, large or small, ;t<i; his 
charges against Dt)Uglas on the Kan.sas 
Constitution affair not forgeries, Lin- 
coln, 322 et seq.; extract from speech 
of, made at Alton, referred to by 
Lincoln iu ills opening at Charleston, 
325 3:11; Douglas's sp'cch at .Tackson- 
\ ilU^ in answer to charges of, Stl-:t.37. 

Uniformity, parent of despotism in politics 
and religion, (58; how only to bo se- 
cured in the United States, GS; Lin- 
coln does not believe iu, of States, 81, 
s;.'. 

Unitarian Church, disturbed by slavery 
(luestion, 441. 

Union. See Fedeuai, Union. 

United Stales, evil induence of slavery In, 
as a Reiniijlican example to the world, 
,s; "This nation is a white people," 
Douglas, 72; down-trodden people of 
all the world look to the United States 
as tho homtM)f freedom and self-gov- 
ernment, 229; the people of the, the 
rightful masters of both congresses 
and courts. 507. 

United States Constitution. Lincoln stand.s 
by, 24; the words "slavery" and 



r>54 



INDEX. 



•slave ■■ not found In. Cfl; rfi|uli-<>s tlu" 
^np|>^essl(>n «if th«> Afrirun Sliivo 
'I'nidc, ii iiilstaki- in |xiint of fact, Lin- 
coln, '.U; (>:i('li |iul)lii- ollicfr ta support 
tlio Constitution as Ik- iindcrstuiKls It. 
I'n'sltlcnt Jackson. -W; noi made by or 
for licjirocs, Tani-y, 41; was made in 
part at least, l>y and fur nc^jrocs, Lin- 
«-oln, -J.'t; bound to stick to it fr«)in bt'- 
(rlnnin); to end, Lincoln, S-l; turn tlii' 
(iovi-rnnu-nt back to wbcrctbc fraincrs 
of tlid'onstitutlonori^'liially placed it, 
LliK'oln, '.11; sliould be maintained us to 
e<iuality of States, nou;rlas, IM; and 
the courts, 1(W; not tlie desi^'n of the 
fmnuTStif, to include nejjrocs as citi- 
zens, Dou^rbis, 111; made for and to be 
adndnlstiTed by the white man. Doug- 
las. 110; Douglas on the only way in 
wlilchitcan be preserved, HI; .lelTer- 
son on the power of the judges as ulti- 
mate arbiters of, 1M\; accordinp: to the 
Supremo Court Decision in I)red Scott 
ca.;e, rei'ofinizes property in slaves. 
207; Lincoln on the oath to support, 
ai'.i; Congress bound to give legislat ive 
support U> any right established un- 
der, 209; must be sustaine<l, Douglas, 
2S2; afllrms the right of property, 360 
-Xl; the right of propt-rty in a slave 
not diitinctly aOirriKd by, :i«il; under 
the Constitution each State has tlii' 
right to do as it pleases on the slavery 
question, Douglas, SflC; slavery at the 
time of the I''iiited States Constitu- 
tion, 4.10; constitutional obligation, 
447-4-llt; Lincoln reviews Douglas's 
position tliat there i.s ii (MJiistitutional 
right to hold slaves in a T'nited States 
Territtiry, 44S et acq.; Lincoln reviews 
Douglas's p<Jsitlou that the United 
States Constitution applU's to the 
Territories t lie same as t<i the States, 
•l(i">; Dred Scottcourtand Fiflii Amend- 
ment to, 515, .516; Fifth and Tentli 
Ai'iendments to, by whom framed, 
510; the union older than t}i(\ .'XC; 
does not expressly say that Congress 
may proidbit slavery in the Terri- 
tories, 'Hi; does not expressly say that 
Congress muKt protect slavery In the 
Territories, "ktl. 
United States Congress, the lirst Congress 
under t lie (^ 'oust it uiion,on slavery and 
the slavt" tr;id<', ;J0; enactments on 
slavery unci the slave trade by, till 
liO). :jO; Judge Douglas says that in- 
t4'rvi'nIlon by, never prohibite<i sla- 
very, .'tl; will not Continue the ])ro- 
hlbltlon of slavery in new Territories, 
Lincoln, 4)i; cannot prohibit slavery, 
57: proiMisitlon of, to Kansas, IM. Iti; 
Judge D«jughis on the Constitution 



and the Courts. IOC; Lincoln on the 
duty of Congress to prohibit slavery 
In all United States Territories, '2ti:i; 
power of, to prohibit slavery in the 
District of Colundjla, 2011; bound to 
sup]>nrt by legislation any right estab- 
lished under the Const it ut ion, ^O'.l; a 
fundamental artlcU- of tlie Demo- 
cratic creed that there sh*^)uld be non- 
interference and non-intervention by 
Congress with slavery in the States or 
Territories, 2so; tlie first Congress 
))asses an act to enforce the<)r<linance 
of 1K«7, 511, 512; Utdted States Con.sti- 
tution d(jes not expressly say that 
Congress iiuiy prohibit or intwt pro- 
tect slavery in the Territories, 534. 

United States Government, the Supreme 
Couil does not control t lie coonlinato 
br;niciies of tlie, I'resideiit .lack.son, 
44; Lincoln says that the, cannot en- 
dure half Slave and half Free, Hi, 483 et 
Kill.; Douglas asserts that Lincoln to- 
tally misapprehends principles upou 
wliich it Is founded, 67, 6S; Douglas 
states that the, was " founded on the 
white basis," 70, 111, i:«J, 34<J, 426; op- 
posed to giving the negro a voice In, 
Douglas, 72; no wish to have one con- 
solidated Government, Lincoln, 84; 
turn it back to tlie channel where the 
framers originally placed It, !)1; Doug- 
las reviews Lincoln's argument that 
the Government cannot exist half 
Slave and half Free. 171-174; should be 
pla(;ed back upon the basis where the 
F.'ithi'rs originally placed it, 2,">4; made 
upon the great basis of the sovereignty 
of the States, 41G; no power under 
the, to interfere with slavery in the 
States, Lincoln, 484 et seq.; charged 
with the duty of promoting the gen- 
eral welfare, 507; "slavery or the Gov- 
ernment must be destroyed," Lincoln, 
.52^1; if the ptillcy of the Government Is 
to bo Irrevocably fixed by the decis- 
ions of the Supreme Court the people 
h.'ive cea.sed to be their own rulers, 
Lincoln, 5.'J5. 

United States Senate, Douglas vindicates 
his coiiisi' in, '.rj- Lincoln and Douglas 
can(li<lat<>s for. lU-UC. 

United States Supreme Court, decision of, in 
the Dred Scott case, 42 ct xcq. ; Lin- 
coln's estimate of th«» n-spect that 
should be i)ald to, 42 cf nc(;. ; Douglas's 
estimate of the respect due to decis- 
ions of, 4:i; General Jackson's estimate 
of respect due to its decisions, 4;t, 44; 
ilei'islon of, on the National Hank 
((uestion. 4;i, 44; relation of, to the co- 
ordinate branchesof the (Jovernment, 
44; ,ludge Douglas denounces decision 



INDEX. 



of, in National Bank case, 44; dociilcs 
that Conf,'ress lias no lislit to proliililt 
slavery in thi! Tt'i-ritorics, 40; Lincoln 
looks for another Drod Scott di'cisidii 
by, 57, 5«; Douglas says there is no ap- 
peal from decisions of, 09, 70, 1ft"), ;t7,'2-:i74, 
:i90, :iy7; Douglas arraigns Lincoln's 
position on, 09, 70; Douglas styles it 
anar('liy if its decisions ;tro not obeyed, 
10."); to whom woukl Lincoln ajjpeal ': 
Douglas, 105, i:i;.'. i:i4; no lawful mode 
of i-eversing the decisions of, Douglas, 
106; how Lincoln Intended to ai)i)eal 
from decision of, Douglas, 100, 107, \-\'Z; 
wh.Lt Linc^oln meant by reversing a 
decision, 100; and the Constitution, 
100; Douglas says thiit war sliould not 
bo waged on. 107-109; individual opin- 
ions must be set aside when the Su- 
preme Court speaks, Douglas, lOS, 1(19, 
281; Douglas says ho is bound by the 
decisions of, i:i4; Lincoln's position on 
obedience to decisions of, 155-158; .Jef- 
ferson on det'isionsof, l,5t); Democratic 
party was not bound by decisions of, 
in the National Bank case, 15(); would 
not violate the United States Consti- 
tution, Douglas, 21.5, 21(); Douglas at- 
tacks Lincoln's position on decisions 
of, 249-2.52; de(!ided that Congressional 
prohibition of slavery in the Territo- 
ries is unconstitutional, 207; decision 
of, that the United States Constitu- 
tion recognizes property in slaves, 267; 
Lincoln reviews Douglas's argument 
as to whether the people of a Terri- 
tory can e.xclude slavery prior to the 
Tormation of a constitution — a ques- 
tion to be decided by the Supreme 
Court, 267, 268; charge of conspiracy 
against the, to nationalize slavery, 304 
ct seq. ; our only safety lies in standing 
by the decisions of, 456; will decide all 
legislation hostile to slavery as un- 
constitutional, 475, 476; if the policy of 
the Government is to be irrevocably 
fixed by decisions of, the people will 
lia ve ceased to be their own rulers. .5:i"). 
See also Dred Scott Decision. 



Utah, part of Mexl<'an acfinlsltioti, 0; shi- 
very laws of, a'l, ;>i; express provision 
of Congress that Utah might enter the 
I'nion as a Slave State If the people 
of, wished It, :«i; rebellion In. 4(1; " the 
sacred right" of self-government for, 
and polygamy, 40; the Compromise of 
1H.")0 and the organlzjillon of. as a Ter- 
ritory, XA; territorial organization of, 
did not estalillsh a general principle 
on the slavery (juestion, :W, :j.V). 

Vermont, resolutions on slavery iiassed 
by Vermont Democratic St.-ite Con- 
vi'ntion. :Hji>. 

Virginia, owned the Northwestern Ter- 
ritory, 2; owned what has since been 
foruH'd into Kent ui'kj', 2; slaves jms- 
sess no legal power to make a choice 
In, 1.54. 

Washington, Territory of, territorial law for, 
did not re|)eal the Ordinance of 'm7, 
:t6; no provision in its territorial law 
to allow the Territory to enter the 
Union as a Slave Stale, :i7; its terri- 
torial law not intended to Im- a copy of 
the Utah and New Me.xlco laws, ;J7. 

Webster, Daniel, Lincoln his friend, Doug- 
las his enemy, 38; supported the Mis- 
souri Compromise, 38; the "god-like," 
117. 

Whig Party, indorse 1850 Compromise, 7, 
105, h)(i; the good old Whig ground. 29; 
position not sectional, 165; position of, 
on slavery prior to 18.54, 2,19, 240, :j(>; ;1C9. 

Wilmot, David, Democratic representative 
at Wasliington and author of the 
" Wilmot Proviso,'' 5, 6. 

Wilmot Proviso, to forbirl slavery in terri- 
tory to be acquired from Mexico, 5; 
history of, 6; defeated by treaty of 
1848, 0; intended to keep slavery out 
of the Mexican acquisition, 12; "in- 
structions" of, repealed by Illinois 
legislature, 63; resolutions concern- 
ing, passed by Democratic Convcntlo.n 
at Naperville, 111., 264. 

Wisconsin, formerly part of Nortbwest- 
ein Territory, 2. 



3i^77-l 



